ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Economy/Inward Investment

Glyn Davies: What steps her Department is taking to strengthen the economy of, and increase inward investment to, Northern Ireland.

Robert Jenrick: What steps her Department is taking to strengthen the economy of, and increase inward investment to, Northern Ireland.

Neil Carmichael: What steps she is taking to promote business investment in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Murrison: May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, Opposition Front Benchers and the House for your indulgence in allowing the Secretary of State to be absent, exceptionally, today? As you know, she is chairing the extremely important talks at Stormont, and we hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion very soon. She takes her duties in this House very seriously, as you know, and she is grateful to you for your indulgence today.
	The Government’s long-term economic plan is working for Northern Ireland, and the UK Government continue to work with the Executive to promote Northern Ireland as a great place to invest. Political stability is paramount in attracting further investment, and I encourage the parties to make significant progress in the current cross-party talks.

Glyn Davies: As a result of the autumn statement, 12,000 people in Northern Ireland will be lifted out of income tax altogether following the increase in personal allowances, and almost every home buyer will pay less stamp duty. Does my hon. Friend agree that the autumn statement will bring great benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland and its people?

Andrew Murrison: Yes, I very much do. It is quite clear that we need to increase prosperity in Northern Ireland. Prosperity is the key to improving security, as indeed is security to the prosperity of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting the substantial amount of foreign direct investment that Northern Ireland is now attracting. It
	gets the UK’s second most FDI per head, with a 32% increase last year. Foreign investors are recognising that Northern Ireland is a great place in which to invest. The latest figures are extremely encouraging.

Robert Jenrick: I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that corporation tax setting powers will be on their way to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland economy is of course very heavily dependent on public sector jobs. What more can the Government do, using the corporation tax powers when they come, to encourage inward investment and innovation in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Murrison: The Chancellor has expressed our desire to devolve that power to the Executive, and the Executive is keen to take it on. The extent to which it will impact on the Northern Ireland economy is of course a matter for the Executive—as is the level at which they wish to pitch corporation tax, once devolved—but they have suggested that up to 40,000 jobs might be created in Northern Ireland by having the power. It is particularly important for encouraging the private sector. As my hon. Friend will know, we are trying with the Executive to rebalance the economy so that the private sector is encouraged, and the devolution of corporation tax is an important part of that.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that the Government’s key extra measure of focusing on skills and making sure that people are properly trained, coupled with business investment, is precisely the way to improve productivity and therefore living standards?

Andrew Murrison: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend will have noted that the changes to national insurance in particular in the autumn statement are very much focused on getting young people into employment. The national insurance rebate is extremely helpful for small business in particular. He will have read with pleasure, as I have, the list of firms that are increasing their presence or investing for the first time in Northern Ireland. It is truly impressive, and it just shows what a great place Northern Ireland now is in which to invest.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister rightly referred to the big increase in foreign direct investment under the Northern Ireland Executive in recent years, but does he agree that the Executive has to deal with many issues and problems that are unique to Northern Ireland? The legacy of the past causes a financial drag on the Executive—increased expenditure—and that has to be addressed by the parties and the Government in the talks this week.

Andrew Murrison: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The past still hangs heavy over Northern Ireland. For people of my generation, our image of Belfast in particular is of course shadowed by what we saw on the television screen all those years ago. Investors who are now looking to Northern Ireland still have those images in their minds, and we need to overcome that. The security situation is key to this, and the improvement in the security situation has been instrumental in making Northern Ireland look and feel a far better place in which to invest.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Minister agree that, as we all accept, political stability is absolutely key in growing the economy in Northern Ireland and creating the conditions for economic prosperity? In his recent remarks in Enniskillen on 24 November, Gerry Adams said that his party was using equality to “break” Unionists—he actually used a foul-mouthed expletive at that point. He said that that was the republican strategy. Does the Minister agree that such language on the use of a policy such as equality is deeply offensive to everybody in Northern Ireland, undermines political stability and confidence and shows that Sinn Fein’s honeyed words and positive language sometimes mask a deeply disturbing policy?

Andrew Murrison: I think Sinn Fein needs to be very careful about the language it uses, as indeed do all politicians. People are looking at Northern Ireland as a potential place to invest and are put off by that kind of posturing. It is very important that all parties work together to continue making Northern Ireland a great place to invest.

Ivan Lewis: As the Minister said, central to attracting business investment into Northern Ireland is political stability and leadership. In that context, the Opposition welcome the Prime Minister’s planned visit to Northern Ireland later this week and his intention to participate, alongside the Taoiseach, in the current all-party talks. Will the Minister assure the House that, alongside an agreement on the budget, including welfare reform, the Government are at the very least seeking to secure agreements on the past and on parades?

Andrew Murrison: The talks are comprehensive, and it is hoped that their outcome will be ambitious. The hon. Gentleman is right that issues around the legacy of the past are central to what is being discussed in Stormont at the moment. I am hopeful that by the end of the week we will have a positive outcome, but all parties need to understand that this is part of a process and that they must remain engaged. Let us hope for some good news in a few days’ time.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he clarify whether the Government are linking the devolution of corporation tax solely to the parties reaching an agreement on next year’s budget? Surely the decision should be based on longer-term considerations such as the impact on jobs and growth and the block grant in Northern Ireland, as well as on the implications for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Andrew Murrison: No, I think it is important that corporation tax is seen as part of a whole. It cannot be taken in isolation, and it is important that the Executive formulate a balanced budget that takes welfare reform into account. Without that balanced budget, it is difficult to see how we can reasonably devolve an important power such as that.

Laurence Robertson: Just a week ago, the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee met Senator Gary Hart in Belfast. He was
	very positive in suggesting that it may well be possible to arrange a trade mission to come from America to Northern Ireland to see what the possibilities are. Will the Minister follow up such a suggestion?

Andrew Murrison: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has met Senator Gary Hart, who is very much part of the current talks process. Apropos my remarks earlier about foreign direct investment, I am pleased to say that it is going up dramatically, although clearly it is not enough, and we would like to see far more in Northern Ireland from America and elsewhere. I would certainly welcome such a proposition.

Security Situation

William McCrea: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Murrison: The safety of people and communities remains the Government’s top priority in Northern Ireland. Although the threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe, excellent co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners has put violent dissident republicans under strain in recent months. There have been a number of significant arrests, charges and convictions, which are helping to suppress the threat.

William McCrea: I thank the Minister for his update on the serious nature of the security threat from republican terrorists and the absolute necessity of defeating them.
	Does the Minister also accept that there are those who violate the sanctity of the homes of elderly people living in our community, threatening and terrorising them? Should not those criminals get custodial sentences of at least seven years, irrespective of how little or how much they actually steal through their criminal activity?

Andrew Murrison: I will not be drawn on matters that are outside my sphere of competence, and I would certainly defer to the Department of Justice for action on many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. I know that the PSNI takes these matters extremely seriously, as do the Government, and appropriate action must be taken.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Minister agree that the greatest contribution to increasing overall security would be a successful and comprehensive outcome to the talks, which enter a vital period this week? It is important that we confront not only the problems of today but the wounds of the brutality and violence of the past. Is the Minister aware that a number of families are in Westminster today as part of their campaign looking for justice and for answers?

Andrew Murrison: May I thank the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his contribution to the current talks? He is correct to say that the outcome of those talks will have a big impact on security in Northern Ireland, and we must all understand that. All parties must understand the extent of the stakes, because if this process fails I am afraid that the future will not look good. The positive
	developments that we have already discussed today cannot be guaranteed, so we must ensure that the talks have a positive, comprehensive outcome.

Mark Reckless: Is the Minister satisfied that appropriate and, as necessary, enhanced security measures are in place over the festive season?

Andrew Murrison: That is a matter for the Minister of Justice in the Executive and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I know that as we approach Christmas the tempo of operations by dissidents in particular has a tendency to increase. The PSNI and the Department of Justice are aware of that and making appropriate preparations.

Jim Shannon: There is a high level of dissident republican activity over Christmas and new year, and there is evidence that dissident republicans have direct contact with terrorist groups in north Africa and the middle east. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with Governments from that region to ensure that the flow of weapons and bomb-making expertise is stopped?

Andrew Murrison: Those matters are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and she is in touch with relevant countries to ensure that the threat of terrorism from individuals from countries outside the United Kingdom is reduced as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be following closely the progress of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill through this House, as that is relevant to the issue he raises.

David Anderson: In recent weeks the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from officials in Northern Ireland and the police service that cuts to budgets are already leading to long delays in the resolution of actions covered by the Historical Enquiries Team. Will the Minister look into that and ensure that no further cuts lead to people who should have had justice years ago having to wait even longer? People are already waiting three times longer than was originally scheduled.

Andrew Murrison: The spending power of the Executive has increased since the beginning of this Parliament and will continue to do so. Spending within the police budget is a matter for the Chief Constable, who has set up the historical legacies team from the Historical Enquiries Team. A further body is under discussion as part of the current talks.

Ivan Lewis: I understand fully the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) about the recent horrendous attack in Lisburn on an elderly person, although I am not authorised to speak on sentencing policy on behalf of my party. The first responsibility of any Government in relation to Northern Ireland remains security. In the run-up to Christmas when threat levels are high, as other hon. Members have said, we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Looking ahead,
	what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of current and projected budget cuts on police numbers and public protection?

Andrew Murrison: The deployment of police assets is a matter for the Chief Constable and the Department of Justice, which broadly takes its funding from two sources—the block grant, plus additional security funding provided by the UK Government, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, amounts to £31 million in the next financial year. I know that the Chief Constable greatly values that additional resource to cover some of the additional security costs in Northern Ireland, but principal responsibility for the deployment of that resource rests and remains with the Minister of Justice.

Party Funding

Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the level of transparency of political party funding in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Andrew Murrison: Political parties in Northern Ireland must report funding they receive to the Electoral Commission, but this is not published owing to the risk of donor intimidation. Legislation will be brought forward shortly to increase the information available about party funding in Northern Ireland, while still protecting donor identities.

Andrew Robathan: Section 15A of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 makes provision for funding to be published and, thanks to the excellent Library, I have today read the Sinn Fein accounts, which told me next to nothing, needless to say. Sinn Fein’s money used to come from the IRA through nefarious activities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the integrity of the political process in Northern Ireland that we have transparency in political funding as soon as possible so that we can learn whether Sinn Fein is taking a legal approach?

Andrew Murrison: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that transparency of funding of political parties is essential. Indeed, I see on the Sinn Fein website that it is the stated intention of that party itself. Although the material published on the Electoral Commission’s website in relation to Sinn Fein’s accounts is basic, I hope that the new legislation—in which my right hon. Friend was very much involved—will give us greater clarity, although it is important that donor identity is preserved.

Ian Paisley Jnr: We had the scandal of the on-the-runs, we had the scandal that for 10 years people associated with one political party were involved in fuel smuggling to raise money, and we have the ongoing scandal of elected Members not taking their seats but receiving money from the House. When will the Government address that?

Andrew Murrison: People considering how to cast their votes should pay particular attention to the work that their elected representatives do here. That increasingly
	appears to be the case and, given the current circumstances, I would have thought that it applied to Sinn Fein more than any.

Stephen Lloyd: While I wholly support the cross-party consensus on transparency in political funding in Northern Ireland, I would like a commitment from the Government that they will continually reassess the position. Until we have full transparency, Northern Ireland will not be wholly free.

Andrew Murrison: We are all working towards complete normality in Northern Ireland. The assessment at the moment is that we are not there yet, and for security reasons we have to ensure that donors have anonymity. My hon. Friend must accept that, but it is an issue that needs to be kept under constant review. At some point—sooner rather than later, I hope—we will be able to normalise that aspect of election law across the United Kingdom.

Lady Hermon: With the general election only five months away, can the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland Office has already sought an assessment from the Chief Constable of the risk of violence to donors to political parties in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Murrison: The provisions in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act should protect the identity of donors, but if they wish to make themselves known through the Electoral Commission, they can do so. In the run-up to the general election, the security services in Northern Ireland are well aware of increased threats to individuals that may obtain, including those whom the hon. Lady mentions.

Corporation Tax

Russell Brown: When the Government plan to publish an analysis of the potential effect of introducing a devolved rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland.

Chris Evans: When the Government plan to publish an analysis of the potential effect of introducing a devolved rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Murrison: The autumn statement set out that the Government are in favour of devolving corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the powers were devolved, the Executive would be responsible for setting the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. The effect would therefore be dependent on the approach taken by the Executive.

Russell Brown: What assessment has been made of the effect of the Government’s economic and welfare policies in Northern Ireland on the feasibility of devolving corporation tax? Can the Minister give the House a fuller explanation?

Andrew Murrison: It is estimated by the Executive that the devolution of corporation tax, and the implementation of the cuts it envisages, would result in 40,000 new jobs
	in Northern Ireland, which is substantial. It will certainly help to improve and enhance the level of foreign direct investment, which I have touched on already. That is impressive, but it has to be sustained. It is particularly interesting to note that in the Office for National Statistics figures announced today, one of the highest sub-regional centres in the UK, in terms of gross value added per capita, is Belfast. We need to grow the economy in Belfast. The devolution of corporation tax would play an important part in that.

Chris Evans: Will the Minister give a guarantee that the devolution of corporation tax will not have an adverse effect on the block grant to the Northern Ireland Executive?

Andrew Murrison: No, I cannot, because the EU Azores rules mean that it has to be taken into account.

Gregory Campbell: Whenever the Minister is speaking with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, will he ensure that ongoing talks will consider the possibility of additional resources, so that the skilled work force in Northern Ireland can become a pool of employees for inward investors who take advantage of corporation tax?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the economic pact published about 18 months ago and updated during the summer, which gave significant new powers to promote the economy, in particular to grow jobs, and there was a significant amount of lending as a result. It has been successful. The groundwork has been laid and we have seen, in the figures I have quoted today, that it is having some level of success. Corporation tax will take that to the next level.

Margaret Ritchie: Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the figures on the cost of devolving power over corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive were given to the Executive. Will the Minister spell out to us the cost to the block grant and the timeline for implementation?

Andrew Murrison: That very much depends on whether the powers are taken up by the Executive and the extent to which they are taken up. The hon. Lady will be aware that corporation tax in the last financial year raised in excess of £400 million. Were corporation tax to be devolved, and reduced as far as it possibly could be, then we are talking about that sort of figure.

Iain McKenzie: Is the Minister aware that the Nevin Economic Research Institute warns that £400 million will have to be cut from public spending in Northern Ireland should corporation tax be moved there?

Andrew Murrison: That is a matter for the Executive. They need to make a judgment on whether it will produce a net improvement to the economy in Northern Ireland. They have decided that it will create up to 40,000 extra jobs, so they clearly believe that corporation tax will
	have a net benefit to the economy of Northern Ireland, but they will have to find the money from the block grant.

Welfare Cap

Mark Durkan: What assessment she has made of the effect in Northern Ireland of the introduction of the welfare cap.

Andrew Murrison: Welfare expenditure accounts for one-sixth of all public spending. The introduction of a UK welfare cap was overwhelmingly approved by 520 Members of this House, although I accept not by the hon. Gentleman. The cap ensures that social security expenditure remains fair to claimants and yet affordable to taxpayers in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Mark Durkan: On welfare spending in Northern Ireland, what assurance can the Minister give that the operation of the cap will not entail a cap within a cap in ways that mean future benefit take-up campaigns will, for the first time, be at the expense of other benefits, which has never been the case in the past?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps confusing the welfare cap with the benefit cap. It is important to note that the previous Minister in the Department for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, said that universal credit will lift 10,000 children out of poverty, and that most people in Northern Ireland will benefit from the change in the welfare rules. This has a substantial capacity to improve the lives of those who are reliant on welfare in Northern Ireland.

Youth Unemployment

Ann McKechin: What steps she is taking to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Murrison: The November labour market survey reports that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland for 18 to 24-year-olds has come down 5% over the year, and the Government are directly helping to get young people into work by abolishing national insurance contributions for businesses employing under-21s and apprentices aged under 25.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will be aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland is much higher than the UK average, and a recent survey by the BelfastTelegraph found that two thirds of young people wanted to leave Northern Ireland. What specific steps is he taking to improve skills and training to encourage young people to stay in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Murrison: Of course, these are matters primarily for the Department for Employment and Learning, with which the Government work closely. I hope the hon. Lady will be aware of the economic plan published 18 months ago in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Executive laying out the steps that we would take jointly to promote a shared and integrated future, including the creation of the further education college
	at Craigavon. Further such measures will be considered. The important thing is to increase the number of apprenticeships in Northern Ireland, and the national insurance contributions announced in the autumn statement are an important part of that.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jonathan Reynolds: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 December.

Nicholas Clegg: I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is visiting Turkey and Auschwitz.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jonathan Reynolds: Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister refused to attend the autumn statement. Exactly which parts of the statement did he most object to?

Nicholas Clegg: The autumn statement was a coalition autumn statement. I spent one day in Cornwall; Opposition Members have spent five years in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to the economy, and the Government side of the House has been clearing up the mess they created.

Peter Lilley: In the light of my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for devolving powers from the UK Government to the component parts of the UK, does he have similar plans for devolving competences from Europe to the UK?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know that I once wrote a booklet about that very idea. Just as we must do at a European level what nation states cannot do on their own—on the environment, globalisation, trade talks and so on—so other powers should be devolved downwards where possible.

Harriet Harman: It is good to see the Deputy Prime Minister back in his place after his important day trip during the important statement last week.
	Since he became Deputy Prime Minister, he has had the opportunity to appoint seven Cabinet members. Will he remind the House how many have been women?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. and learned Lady knows exactly who the members of the Cabinet are from the Liberal Democrat team. I would remind her, however, that millions of women in this country have got from this Government what they never got from her Government: better pensions; more jobs; tax cuts; shared parental leave; better child care; and more
	flexible working. Instead of scoring Westminster points, why does she not do the right thing for millions of women around the country?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is reluctant to answer the question, which is unlike him, because normally when he is asked about numbers and women, he is quite forthcoming. I will tell the House the answer: four and a half years as Deputy Prime Minister, seven Cabinet appointments, and not one woman. And this is not a Westminster point, because it affects what they do. So will he tell the House, since his Government introduced tribunal fees, what has been the fall in the number of sex discrimination cases?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not have that statistic to hand, but I am happy to provide it to the right hon. and learned Lady. Once again, however, she displays her and her party’s total denial about their record on women. Female unemployment rose 24% under Labour, and in one year women were given a paltry 75p rise in the state pension—scandalous, a total shame. Through our new, fairer single-tier pension, 650,000 women will get an extra £400 a year from 2016, and I care more about those 650,000 women across the country than I do about anyone around the Cabinet table.

Harriet Harman: I will answer the question since the right hon. Gentleman has not. Since the introduction of their tribunal fees, there has been a 90% fall in women taking sex discrimination cases to a tribunal, including women who have been discriminated against at work because they are pregnant.
	Let me turn to another of the right hon. Gentleman’s key decisions. Of those who get the millionaires’ tax cut, what percentage are men?

Nicholas Clegg: This is quite breathtaking. Is the right hon. and learned Lady not aware that of the over 26 million people who have benefited from our tax cuts for low and middle-income earners, the tax cut has disproportionately gone to women? Is she not aware that under her Government the top rate of tax was 40p—5p lower than it is under this Government? Is she not aware that there are now more women in employment than ever before? That is a record of which we are very proud indeed.

Harriet Harman: And he should be aware that any gains on tax changes for women have been more than wiped out by the hit they have taken on the cuts to tax credits. And yes, I would indeed agree with him that it is breathtaking that 85% of those who benefit from the millionaires’ tax cut are men. Let us try him on another one. What proportion of those hit by his bedroom tax are women?

Nicholas Clegg: Since the right hon. and learned Lady is losing her way a bit with the statistics, let me tell her that we have cut tax for 11.9 million women, and that the gender pay gap for women under the age of 40 has pretty well disappeared under this coalition. Under her Government, only one in eight of the FTSE 100 board members were women. Under this Government, there are more women on FTSE 100 boards
	than ever before. The Labour party is becoming the Lance Armstrong of British politics: it has forgotten the better half of a decade of how it messed things up.

Harriet Harman: I will tell the Deputy Prime Minister and the House the reality for people who are paying the bedroom tax. Two thirds of those hit by the bedroom tax are women. It does not seem that there is any shortage of spare rooms in Downing street for the spin doctors to spin against each other. Let me ask him about something else. Of the £26 billion this Government have raised through changes to benefits and direct taxes, a staggering £22 billion has come from women. Can he explain why?

Nicholas Clegg: I think it is time to call out the right hon. and learned Lady on her Government’s record. Under Labour, unemployment was higher; female unemployment was higher; youth unemployment was higher; inequality was higher; child poverty was higher; pensioner poverty was higher; relative poverty was higher; fuel poverty was higher; and income tax for low and middle-income earners, including millions of women, was higher. When will she come to admit that her party created so much of the mess that this side of the House has had to clear up?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated that he is completely out of touch with women’s lives. It is always the same with this Deputy Prime Minister. He talks the talk, but he walks through the Lobby with the Tories. He briefs against them, but he always votes with them. He complains about the autumn statement, but he signed it off. That is why people will never trust him or his party ever again.

Nicholas Clegg: Does the right hon. and learned Lady seriously think that the British people are going to trust her and her party on the economy? Of course not. Manufacturing jobs were destroyed three times faster under Labour than they were under Margaret Thatcher. This was the party—[Interruption.] In fact, the shadow Health Secretary, sitting there demurely, is the only man in England who has ever privatised an NHS hospital, and they dare to lecture us. [Interruption.] Hinchingbrooke hospital—the only NHS hospital to be privatised, and by the Labour party. Inequality higher under Labour; privatisation of the NHS higher under Labour; and an economy destroyed under Labour.

Stephen Hammond: My constituents will have been delighted to hear the Deputy Prime Minister support last week’s excellent autumn statement, because they know that it is the only credible plan for economic recovery. They have been worried about scurrilous rumours that he wants to raise taxes and impose a homes tax in the next Parliament, but, in view of his answer to Question 1, that cannot be true. Will he now confirm his loyalty to the long-term economic plan, which is bringing jobs and growth to people in Wimbledon?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we must stay the course in order to finish the job, and finish it fairly. He may be aware that the long-term youth claimant count in his constituency has fallen by a full 40% in the last year alone, which is an extraordinary achievement.
	As my hon. Friend knows, my view is that it is simply not fair or justifiable to apply council tax bands to low-value properties without adopting the same approach to high-value properties. Why should a family living in a family home in Lewisham pay the same council tax as someone living in a £10 million palace, possibly in Wimbledon? That does not make sense to me, and it should change.

Julie Hilling: My 69-year-old Atherton constituent Margaret was run over by a car, and was left bleeding in the road for 90 minutes before the ambulance turned up. The Chancellor said last week that the Government had made cuts without affecting front-line services. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor, or does he regret supporting every cut that the Government have made?

Nicholas Clegg: What I regret enormously is the fact that every household in the hon. Lady’s constituency—indeed, every household in all our constituencies—took a hit of £3,000 because of the crash in 2008, which was caused in large part by the absolute neglect of the Labour party in government. That is what I regret. The economy has suffered a cardiac arrest the likes of which we have not seen before during the post-war period. I am very proud of the fact that this coalition Government are making painstaking, if controversial, decisions to ensure that we live within our means rather than simply burdening our children and grandchildren with this generation’s mistakes.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents in Dover and Deal are very concerned about border security and the situation that we have seen in Calais this year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, while we have acted, the European Union should take more responsibility for people trafficking and the problems of Schengen open borders, and that it should make Italy take responsibility as the first country for asylum claimants on the island of Lampedusa?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I understand what an important issue this is for my hon. Friend and his constituents. I agree with him that it is a problem shared and that therefore the solution needs to be shared as well, across the European Union. That is one of the reasons why I have always been an advocate of cross-border co-operation in the EU on issues concerning people who cross our borders. We cannot act on our own. I agree with my hon. Friend that, whenever possible, the European Union should act effectively and together.

Gordon Banks: Opposition Members have called for a section 30 order to fast-track elements of the Smith commission to Scotland, especially votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister’s boss does not usually allow him to make the big decisions, but as he is in the big seat today, will he commit himself to going ahead with the section 30 order now?

Nicholas Clegg: We will stick to the timetable to which all the main parties in Westminster committed themselves at the time of the referendum.
	We have stuck to that timetable religiously so far. In fact, despite predictions to the contrary by the Scottish National party, we have over-delivered on the commitments regarding further devolution to Scotland.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, a lively debate is taking place about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds. My party has always believed that we should give them the right to vote. They took up that right with alacrity at the time of the Scottish referendum, but the issue will clearly continue to be debated across parties in the House.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Michael Thornton.

Mike Thornton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a bit surprised!

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was standing, so presumably he was standing in the hope of being called. I do not know why he is so surprised.

Mike Thornton: Sometimes I worry I might forget where I am.
	Some of the most heart-rending cases in my surgery on a weekly basis involve people who have had mental health difficulties and feel let down by the national health service and other organisations set up to help them. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that it is time we did more?

Nicholas Clegg: I suspect that many Members from all parties in this House will agree that mental health services have for too long been treated as a poor cousin—a Cinderella service—in the NHS and have been systematically underfunded for a long time. That is why I am delighted to say that the coalition Government have announced that we will be introducing new access and waiting time standards for mental health conditions such as have been in existence for physical health conditions for a long time. Over time, as reflected in the new NHS mandate, we must ensure that mental health is treated with equality of resources and esteem compared with any other part of the NHS.

Kevin Barron: When the Health and Social Care Act 2012 passed through Parliament, the Government said it was not about privatisation. A recent study by the British Medical Journal says that one third of all contracts have gone to the private sector and only 10% to the voluntary and social enterprise sector. Does the Deputy Prime Minister regret supporting that legislation?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman is being highly selective in describing what that report said. It actually said that of all NHS budget contracts, 6% had gone to the private sector. Guess how high it was when this Government took office: 5%. So Labour presided over a 5% delivery of contracts to the private sector, and we have added 1%. The Opposition delivered £250 million-worth of sweetheart deals to the NHS, deliberately undercutting the NHS for operations that did not help a single NHS patient in the country—and they have the gall to lecture us on the privatisation of the NHS!

Alan Duncan: Will the Deputy Prime Minister unreservedly condemn what appears to be the killing this morning by the Israeli defence force of the Palestinian Government Minister Ziad Abu Ein, who was doing nothing more than protesting in his own country against illegal demolitions and the destruction of ancient olive groves by the state of Israel? Will Her Majesty’s Government join in international pressure demanding a full investigation and then calling, should it be so justified, for the prosecution of the soldier who struck him?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I and the Government will urgently look into the circumstances around this killing. Of course we condemn all unwarranted acts of violence on all sides in the middle east. I am not familiar now with the circumstances of this particular death, but clearly we want to see restraint exercised on all sides, we want to see an end to illegal settlement activity and to indiscriminate violence being inflicted on innocent Israeli citizens, and a demonstrative move on all sides, which will involve difficult compromises, towards the two-state solution, which is the only means by which peace and security can be delivered to all communities in the middle east.

Andrew Gwynne: The Deputy Prime Minister has received donations totalling £34,500 from the managing director of Autofil Yarns Ltd. What does he think of the fact that workers at Autofil Yarns Ltd have received the news recently that as many as 160 jobs could be moved overseas—jobs lost to Britain—by Autofil Yarns?

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly I cannot speak for Autofil; any company needs to explain its own business and investment decisions. I am very surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s line of questioning, given that the Labour party is entirely bankrolled by the puppet-masters of the trade unions. For all I know, that question might have been written for him by his trade union bosses. Surely he would agree with me that it is time we cleaned up party funding on a cross-party basis once and for all.

Stewart Jackson: In Peterborough, youth unemployment has halved since 2010, apprenticeships are at record levels and the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count has come down 51% in the past four years. In addition, the number of children living in workless households is now at a record low nationally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that such achievements—and the policies that give rise to them, which were consistently opposed by Labour—show political courage and will change people’s lives for the better, and are not, as some people have foolishly suggested, the result of an ideological commitment to austerity?

Nicholas Clegg: Given that we were told by the Opposition at the outset of the coalition that 3 million people would be unemployed, it is striking that there are now more people in work than ever before. I find that striking in my own constituency, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt does in his. I remember being warned by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that there
	would be a “post-Soviet” meltdown and that people would be fending for themselves on the streets, but we now have fewer young people than ever in Sheffield who are not in education, employment or training. There are fewer NEETs in that great city than ever before, and we are seeing that repeated across the country. That is a result of a balanced, pragmatic, non-ideological approach to balancing the books steadily over time.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister use his evidently widespread support in the coalition ranks, particularly with the Prime Minister, to prevail on the Prime Minister to honour a pledge he made in June this year to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal that took place in the NHS? That scandal has reflected badly on successive Administrations, probably going as far back as that of Harold Wilson, if not further. In June the Prime Minister undertook to look at and rectify the situation, to the extent that that is possible, and this would be one promise that the coalition Government have it in their power to deliver.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is quite right to say that this heart-wrenching issue has dragged on for a very long time. If I may, I shall write to him about it. I know that steps have been taken to address some of the many legitimate outstanding claims, and I shall look into the matter and write to him.

Mark Spencer: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is currently in special measures. What assistance can he give to the Health Secretary as he works with the trust to ensure continued improvement despite its having to wrestle with its £40 million a year repayments on a private finance initiative deal signed under the previous Government?

Nicholas Clegg: I am afraid this is another example of the Janus-faced approach to the NHS by the party opposite. The Labour Government entered into this appalling PFI contract, along with other such contracts in the NHS, and those contracts are now costing the NHS £1 billion a year. It is an absolute scandal that the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has been crippled by a botched PFI deal entered into by the previous Government. The trust is now receiving central support to address its underlying financial deficit, and it has developed a plan showing year-on-year improvements in its position, including 145 extra nurses, nursing support staff and doctors since going into special measures.

Toby Perkins: If the Deputy Prime Minister had attended the autumn statement, he would have heard the Chancellor claim that this is a Government who back small businesses. He could give those words some meaning by backing Labour’s plan to outlaw large companies charging small companies to be on their supply list. Will he take this opportunity to back that plan in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and really start to stand up for small firms?

Nicholas Clegg: Thankfully, we have seen more new and small businesses being created under this coalition Government than since records began. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I think everyone would agree—about the revelations that have come to light in recent days of some large companies, particularly in the food sector, in effect charging small suppliers for the privilege of providing them with supplies. I know that the right hon. Member, the right hon. Minister, my—

Michael Fabricant: Friend?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking carefully at this matter, and he has already pledged publicly to take action if necessary.

Robert Jenrick: My constituent Diane Howells visited GPs in Newark 15 times in eight months last year before she was eventually diagnosed with terminal cancer when her son Luke took her to the accident and emergency department in Newark. A quarter of all new cancer cases—amounting to 80,000 people a year—are only diagnosed at A and E. Will my right hon. Friend agree to review this tragic case and to back Luke’s campaign to have cancer ruled out first, rather than last, and to increase referral rates from our GPs?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I shall look into the case, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will also be keen to look at it and get back to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the NHS is successfully seeing 51% more patients with suspected cancers than it was four years ago; survival rates have never been higher; almost nine out of 10 patients say that their care is excellent or very good; and the cancer treatment fund has helped thousands upon thousands of patients. But, of course, where possible we should always do more.

Gregg McClymont: The Deputy Prime Minister has made a series of extraordinary claims today, but among the most extraordinary is the one, in response to a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), that pensioner poverty rose under the last Government—in fact, pensioner poverty fell dramatically. Will he explain to the House what his source for that claim is? It certainly cannot be the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which in 2010 reported that pensioner poverty fell dramatically under the last Government.

Nicholas Clegg: The source is that what we are doing is a whole lot better than the insult of 75p. We have delivered the largest cash increase in the state pension ever; we have delivered the triple lock guarantee for pensioners; and we want to put that into law, so that, unlike under Labour, pensioners on the state pension will know that because of this coalition Government their state pension will go up by a decent amount every single time. That is my source.

Spending Priorities (Defence)

Julian Lewis: What recent assessment he has made of the position of defence in the UK’s spending priorities.

Nicholas Clegg: Our defence budget is the biggest in the EU and the second largest in NATO. This Government are spending 2% of GDP on defence this Parliament—we are one of only four NATO countries to do so.

Julian Lewis: That was not exactly an answer to the question on the Order Paper. Given that this country for decades spent more than 4% on defence, does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that it would be a disgraceful dereliction of duty if the British Government ever fell below the 2% minimum recommended by NATO?

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend will know, we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, and have consistently met and exceeded this NATO guideline. We are spending more than £160 billion on equipment and equipment support over the next 10 years, which will ensure that we have one of the best trained and best equipped armed forces in the world. Decisions on defence spending after 2015-16 will, of course, have to be determined in the next comprehensive spending round.

Engagements

Ben Bradshaw: What does the Deputy Prime Minister think of the fact that under his Government if he now needed an operation in Devon, he would be denied it because he smokes, as would the Communities and Local Government Secretary because of his size?

Nicholas Clegg: That’s a bit harsh. I do not think anyone would disagree with clinicians in Devon and elsewhere urging patients to look after themselves and prepare themselves for operation. My understanding is that the decision—or the announcement mooted—in Devon is about patients preparing for operations, but of course I disagree with the idea of, in effect, rationing in this way, which is one of the reasons we have announced, in total, £3 billion of extra money for our beloved NHS.

Ian Swales: On 13 November, the people of Switzerland voted overwhelmingly to retain freedom of movement with the European Union, because their politicians talked about the economic benefits of being in the single market. Will the Deputy Prime Minister continue to do what the City, the CBI and companies in my constituency want, which is to talk about those benefits for the UK and reject the politics of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that freedom of movement, which is a privilege and entitlement that more than 1.5 million British citizens benefit from across the European Union, is something we should defend. But freedom of movement is not the same as, and is not synonymous with, the freedom to claim, which is why there is now a very
	healthy debate about how we ensure that freedom of movement can be protected while the rules on access to benefits can be changed.

Fixed-term Parliaments

Graham Allen: What assessment he has made of the effect on the performance of Government of the introduction of five-year fixed term parliaments; and if he will make a statement.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee he chairs for their work on the operation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Fixed-term Parliaments give greater predictability and continuity, enabling better long-term legislative and financial planning. The full effect of introducing fixed-term Parliaments is something that can only be assessed over time, which is why the Act will be reviewed in 2020.

Graham Allen: Nearly 25 years ago, I asked the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, at Prime Minister’s questions whether she would set up a national institution to reduce the sexual abuse of children. May I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government on setting up, over the past five years, a series of “what works” organisations to provide best practice including early intervention? Will he and other party leaders consider putting in their manifestos the creation of a national institute for the study and prevention of sexual abuse of children so that we do not have another 25 years’ worth of belated inquiries? Such an institute would pre-empt perpetration and help victims with the best evidence-based practice and programmes both nationally and internationally.

Nicholas Clegg: I happen to know that the hon. Gentleman is seeing my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention on that issue next week. I and my party agree with the hon. Gentleman about the merits of “what works” initiatives. A “what works” institute for crime prevention would be a good idea. He shines a spotlight on the reprehensible and grotesque crimes of child sex abuse and exploitation. I agree that we need to work together, which is why the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People has been set up, to work across agencies, areas and local authorities to bear down on these reprehensible crimes.

Stephen Lloyd: Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting Motcombe primary school in my constituency. It has fought tooth and nail to introduce free school meals, and has been very successful. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Motcombe and all the primary schools in my constituency and across England which have done such a fantastic job delivering on his policy?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I congratulate everybody at Motcombe primary school and all the primary schools across the country which, despite all the scepticism and cynicism, have delivered healthy free school meals at lunchtime to 1.5 million more children. The educational and health benefits are considerable, and I am delighted that we are now doing this across the country.

Brian H Donohoe: With crude oil now below $70 a barrel, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why that price is not reflected at the pumps?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have raised this with the industry. We all want to see the lower shifts in oil prices across the world reflected in the prices on our forecourts. We must continue to focus on that in our dealings with all the oil companies.

Peter Bone: “We should be clear. It is not wrong to express concern about the scale of people coming into the country. People have understandably become frustrated. It boils down to one word: control.” Does the stand-in Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister, because they were his words?

Nicholas Clegg: There are some important controls that we need to improve and strengthen. It is essential that we reintroduce the proper border controls and exit checks that were removed by previous Governments. I insisted that that was in the coalition agreement. We are now on track to do that, so, just as we count people in, we count them out as well. Those additional controls are important, because we can then discover who has overstayed their presence here in the United Kingdom illegally, which is one of the biggest problems that we face.

Points of Order

Gregg McClymont: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to make claims about an issue as important as pensioner poverty and not back them up with any facts whatsoever? If he has inadvertently misled the House, should he not withdraw those claims? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not for me to control who remains in the Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, I am sure that he will be interested to hear the reply. I think that I just about heard, amidst the noise, the gravamen of his point, which related to a claim that the Deputy Prime Minister gave an answer that was not based upon fact. I simply say that were the Chair to be held responsible for answers, or even for questions, on account of the presence or absence of facts, the Chair would be even busier than he already is. I think that one has to be reasonable about this. Look, it is a point of debate. I say in the gentlest and most festive spirit to the hon. Gentleman, who was becoming extremely excited and excitable while awaiting the answer to his question, that I have always regarded him to be something of a cerebral academic, and it is most unusual for him to become over-excited. I wish him a very enjoyable Christmas and a happy new year.

Andy Burnham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When it comes to accuracy, the Deputy Prime Minister appears not to have had a particularly good outing this afternoon. He said during the course of questions that I privatised an NHS hospital when Secretary of State for Health. That is not a point of debate; it is a point of sheer inaccuracy. The contract for Hinchingbrooke hospital was signed under the coalition, and when the previous Government left office there was still an NHS bidder in the competition. Do you not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister might have inadvertently misled the House and that he should return right now to correct the record?

Mr Speaker: Well, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is his own best advocate, and he has put the position on the record with crystal clarity. If a Minister feels that in the circumstances it would be prudent or courteous to return to the Chamber now or at some other opportunity to correct the record, it is open to that Minister to do so. We will leave it there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am saving the hon. Gentleman up. It would be a pity to waste him too early in the proceedings.

Julian Huppert: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Health Secretary repeatedly says that there was an NHS bidder in the final three that he left. The last three bidders for the Hinchingbrooke contract were Circle, Ramsay and Serco. Could he let us know which of those he thinks is the NHS bidder?

Mr Speaker: I blame myself. My natural generosity of spirit got the better of me. Because the hon. Gentleman is himself a cerebral academic, as distinguished, I am sure, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), I rather thought that he might raise a genuine point of order, rather than inappropriately continuing the debate. In future I will know better. The hon. Gentleman might look very serious, but that does not mean that he is not about to abuse our procedures.

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Accuracy is important in this House. The Deputy Prime Minister also asserted that the majority of people who would benefit from the increase in tax allowances were women. In fact, the House of Commons Library, which we all take very seriously, has confirmed that the majority of people who will benefit from the increase in tax allowances are men.

Mr Speaker: I refer to my earlier ruling in respect of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which was that the Chair is not responsible for adjudicating upon factual accuracy. The shadow Home Secretary has put the position very clearly on the record, and I am sure that the House of Commons Library will be grateful to her.

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last day news has emerged of a large-scale maritime security operation taking place off the Scottish coast. It is doing so in circumstances in which the UK Ministry of Defence is unable to deploy any maritime patrol aircraft and has had to depend on MPA provided by the United States of America, Canada and France. Given the seriousness of the situation, have you been advised by the Ministry of Defence that it intends to make a statement to the House so that we, as parliamentarians, can be informed of the situation?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is that I have not been so advised. I have received no indication that a Minister intends to make a statement in the way the hon. Gentleman would like and is advocating. However, he has made his point with force and alacrity, and knowing him as I do, I rather feel that if he considers that he has a good point, he is unlikely to let it go, and it is even conceivable that at appropriate points he might repeat it.

Resettlement of Vulnerable Syrian Refugees

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about the resettlement of vulnerable Syria refugees.

James Brokenshire: The whole House shares deep concern about the continuing situation in Syria, the suffering and hardship it is causing for millions of refugees, and the enormous strain it is placing on the region. With 3.2 million people displaced into Syria’s neighbouring countries and millions more in need within Syria itself, this Government believe it is right to focus efforts on substantial aid to help the large numbers of people who remain. This is a crisis of international proportions. Alleviating the suffering and seeking an end to the conflict are the best ways to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for the majority of Syrian refugees and their host countries. Ending the war, defeating extremism and ending the humanitarian crisis require both military pressure and a political settlement that replaces the Assad regime with a Government who can represent all Syrians.
	The UK has committed £700 million in response to the humanitarian crisis. This significant contribution makes us the second largest bilateral donor after the United States. The UK’s support is helping hundreds of thousands of refugees across the region to access vital food, water, medical care and essential supplies that are so desperately needed. UK aid has provided water for up to 1.5 million people per month and supported over 600,000 medical consultations. Last year, we funded 5.2 million monthly food rations.
	Compared with aid, resettlement can only ever help a minority. We do, however, recognise that there are some particularly vulnerable people who cannot be supported effectively in the region, which was why earlier this year we launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to provide sanctuary for those displaced Syrians who are most at risk. The VPR scheme is the first resettlement programme run by the UK to target support for refugees specifically on the basis of their vulnerability. It is prioritising women and children at risk, people in need of medical care, and the survivors of torture and violence.
	It is right that our resettlement efforts focus on the most vulnerable refugees, rather than our operating any form of crude quota system. Arrivals under the scheme so far have included a number of children and adults with very severe medical needs who could not access the treatment they needed in the region. The Government have committed to helping several hundred people over three years, and that is exactly what we are doing. Between March and September, 90 people were granted humanitarian protection in the UK under the scheme. We continue to work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the most vulnerable cases displaced by the conflict in Syria and to relocate them to the UK. This is, of course, in addition to the many other Syrian asylum claims that
	we consider under our normal rules. Since the crisis began in 2011, we have granted asylum or other forms of leave to more than 3,400 Syrian nationals.
	Resettlement can make a real difference to the lives of refugees who can be supported effectively only outside the region. I am delighted to see those arriving under the scheme settling into their new homes and receiving the care that they need, but we must not lose sight of the millions of Syrians who remain in the region. Our primary focus was and still is the provision of humanitarian assistance and aid to displaced people both within Syria and in its neighbouring countries. Continuing our efforts to help them through aid must remain our highest priority.

Yvette Cooper: The British Government have, rightly, committed £700 million to help those affected by the Syrian conflict, and the UK’s largest ever humanitarian crisis response reflects the values of the British people. I applaud the Government’s efforts, but the scale of the response is also a reflection of the horrific nature of this war. Ten million people need help and thousands are displaced every day. This is a war seemingly without end and with no limits to its inhumanity.
	More than 3.2 million Syrians have become refugees in the surrounding region—in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Those countries are providing an immense amount of support and shelter. Everyone agrees that the vast majority of people affected want to go home and should stay in the region. Yesterday, however, the United Nations asked at a conference in Geneva for countries across the globe to increase support for its limited programme that helps the most vulnerable refugees who struggle to survive or cope in the region: orphaned children, women who have been sexually abused, victims of torture and those needing treatment or support. What did Britain do when asked for more help yesterday? Nothing. Why?
	This is the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. It took weeks of pressure from the House before the Home Secretary set up the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in January. Even then, she still refused to be part of the United Nations programme. She did say that she would help several hundred people, but a year later only 90 of those vulnerable refugees have been helped. That is not good enough.
	As part of the UN programme, Finland has provided 500 places, Ireland 310 places, Norway 1,000 places, France 500 places—as well as further humanitarian visas—Switzerland 500 places and Sweden 1,200 places. Other countries, including Germany and Austria, have chosen to offer thousands of places each. The UN scheme is flexible. It is not a quota. It is not about every refugee, but about each country doing its bit and what it can alongside others.
	I have three questions for the Government. First, will they accept that their parallel programme is not working and sign up to the United Nations programme instead? Secondly, will they take refugees out of the net migration target immediately? The Government are under pressure over immigration, where stronger controls are needed, but asylum is different from immigration. They must not allow the debate about immigration to cloud their conscience over helping refugees.
	Thirdly, will the Government now agree to do more to help? Will they rapidly accelerate the programme to meet the promises made in January and also convene an urgent meeting with local councils across the country? Kingston-upon-Thames has agreed to help 50 Syrian refugees and other councils have said they could do more if they got the right support from the Government. Will the Minister convene a meeting to ask local councils how many vulnerable refugees in total we can offer to support?
	When we raised the issue a year ago, the Home Secretary sent a Minister to say no. I hope that the Government will not do the same again. The violence of the Syrian conflict is unimaginable for us sitting here. Once, we were proud as a country to offer safe haven—from the Kindertransport to those helped from the Rwandan genocide. It would be shameful, but also against our history and our values as a country, if we were to turn our backs when asked for more help now. I urge Ministers to think again.

James Brokenshire: The shadow Home Secretary is right to underline the significance of the issues faced in Syria and of the millions of people displaced by that horrific conflict. As I said, it is right that we focus our efforts on seeking to bring an end to the conflict as well as on providing direct assistance in the most effective way to those who have been affected and displaced. That is precisely what the Government are doing and the UK can be proud of our record in seeking to provide that direct assistance to those most in need as a consequence of the conflict.
	The right hon. Lady suggested that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme was in some way not working and not fulfilling its intentions, but I entirely reject that. The VPR scheme is already providing direct help for people fleeing persecution and for those most in need of help, medical or otherwise. I congratulate the local authorities that are supporting the scheme and providing such direct assistance. To reflect one of her other points, I would certainly encourage more local authorities to come on board and be part of the scheme to ensure that those arriving in this country are able to receive the support and assistance that they need to be able to settle well and effectively in the UK.
	The right hon. Lady made a point that was not worthy of our proceedings when she suggested that our decisions are in some way being clouded by a focus on net migration figures. That is absolutely not the case. Our country can be proud of the work that we are doing in providing this direct assistance under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme which, as I said, has provided asylum to 3,400 people from Syria who have been fleeing the conflict. I therefore entirely reject her assertion.
	The right hon. Lady highlighted the need to ensure that support is provided to children and women in need. Through our work via the Department for International Development and our aid programmes, the UK has allocated £82 million to provide protection, trauma care and education for children affected by the crisis in Syria and the wider region, recognising their vulnerability and the need to ensure that assistance is provided directly.
	The right hon. Lady referred to the contribution of several countries in seeking to take in refugees from Syria. Each country provides assistance in its own different manner. Given the £700 million that the UK is providing
	to support millions of people in the region directly and immediately, and the asylum that is being provided to Syrians fleeing persecution through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, this country should be proud of the role it is playing in providing help and assistance to those most in need. This is an ongoing crisis and tragedy, which is why we are providing direct assistance and aid, and we would certainly encourage others to do so. Focusing on humanitarian assistance and on bringing an end to the conflict will provide the most direct help.

Alistair Burt: I think that we should deal with this question in context. I have visited Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and seen the immense work that the British Government are doing in looking after refugees. The Minister is right to be proud of it, and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to mention it. In the context of the extraordinary efforts that the United Kingdom is making, it is not correct—it is rather unfair—to suggest that any part of our support can be termed “shameful”. Admitting people through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme is the right thing to do. Will the Minister confirm that it has no quota and that it can be extended, as it is a matter of finding the right people who can most benefit? It would always be nice to find a reason to take in more people, but if we set this scheme in the context of the rest of work that the United Kingdom is doing, it is clear that our contribution, which is over and above that of many of the countries mentioned by the right hon. Lady as taking in more people, means that we can be proud of what we are doing.

James Brokenshire: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, for the work that he has done in the region and for his continuing focus on these issues. He is absolutely right that there is no quota. We said that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme will provide assistance to several hundred people over a three-year period, and that is precisely what is happening—the scheme remains on track to deliver that. I underline the point about the work of a number of countries in region to solve this humanitarian crisis. I pay tribute to their work and to the direct role that the UK is playing in assisting them.

Keith Vaz: It is a sad irony that the Home Office published figures today showing that 11,000 foreign national criminals are still in our country, at a cost to the taxpayer of £250 million, yet under this scheme we have allowed in fewer than 100 people. We need to do much more to enable such people to come here. Has the Minister spoken to the European Union’s Migration Commissioner about the difficulties faced by Greece and Italy due to the large number of Syrian refugees making their way into the EU? What support are we giving those countries to help those people arriving in the EU, rather than those who manage to get to Calais?

James Brokenshire: The Government maintain that because of the number of people involved, the most effective way to provide the most support is in region via humanitarian assistance. The right hon. Gentleman asks about our discussions with EU partners and countries that may experience these flows of people through southern European borders. The week before
	last, I attended a conference in Rome with European Ministers and Ministers from several African countries. Through the Khartoum process, which is about such linking and joining up, we are taking a number of steps to deal directly with some of the issues that he highlights.

Menzies Campbell: When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made her statement earlier this year, I welcomed it, perhaps more generously than some in the House. However, that has resulted in a far higher degree of disappointment on my part about the implementation of the scheme which, after all, is intended to try to deal with those who have suffered the most as a result of events in Syria. We can be proud of what are spending and of what we are doing in general, but surely that should not exclude the possibility of our doing something particular for those who have suffered most. I regret to say that I hope we are not allowing the shadow of Mr Farage to obscure our humanitarian responsibilities.

James Brokenshire: No. When the vulnerable persons relocation scheme was launched, we were very clear about its nature and intent: to help, over the course of the next three years, several hundred of those people most in need. The scheme was put in place very quickly and a steady number of people have been coming through month on month. Through the scheme, we are able to provide care, housing and assistance locally to ensure that people’s specific needs, including the significant health needs that many have, are adequately and properly met. The scheme is performing and doing the job that it needs to do.

Gerald Kaufman: Ernest Bevin once described a political statement as “clitch, clitch, clitch”, and that—clichés—is what we have had from the Minister today. It is just rubbish to say that we must concentrate on bringing an end to the conflict, because there is nothing whatever that we can do to bring this ghastly conflict to an end. We are talking about simply the worst humanitarian disaster on this planet—and that is saying a lot, considering other such disasters. While I do not in any way deride or dismiss the financial aid that is being applied, it is the human beings whom we ought to be doing something about. The Home Office is failing in that, and it is about time that it had a heart.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the scale and extent of the problem, but I am sorry that he has sought to downplay the significant contribution that the Government are making to help millions of people who have been affected by this appalling conflict. It remains absolutely right that we seek to end the war and to defeat extremism, as well as ending the humanitarian crisis, and that is why we must also focus on the political process. Dialogue remains active between the United Nations and the international community, among supporters of the opposition and among Syrians themselves. This Government and this country can be proud of what we are doing through this assistance and our political focus—and, yes, through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in providing asylum.

Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate the Minister on his approach to the problem because he reflects the Government’s sympathy and concern for the plight of the Syrian refugees. Small organisations in this country such as the Lady Fatemah Charitable Trust, which is based in my constituency, do great work in providing food assistance and humanitarian aid in places such as Iraq and Lebanon, as many refugees do not wish to go far from home and want to be helped directly wherever they have landed. Will the Minister encourage more organisations to carry out such work?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting the incredible work of so many charities and non-governmental organisations. I pay tribute to the work of the organisation in her constituency. We should remember the incredible risks that so many people take to provide such help and assistance. It is important to underline that, as well as to recognise their supportive work with DFID and other partners.

Nigel Dodds: We know that the Minister has the scheme that he has outlined—it is the subject of this Urgent Question—and that Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are doing an enormous amount to help in the refugee crisis, but what more can the Government do to put pressure on other Governments in the region, such as the Gulf states, to open their doors to more refugees from Syria?

James Brokenshire: I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that that matter is being raised at international bodies and in international discussions. The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the work done by countries such as Jordan and others. We are providing more than £300 million in aid assistance outside Syria to some of the countries on which the displacement of people is most directly having an impact.

Sarah Teather: I have visited both Lebanon and Jordan to see projects supporting Syrian refugees, as outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In talking about numbers, it is worth noting—on a day when the Prime Minister is in Turkey—that Turkey has received more Syrians fleeing the war in the past three days than the number resident in the whole of Europe altogether. Will the Minister consider expanding not just the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, for which many colleagues have argued, but other safe routes to travel? For example, family reunification, which Switzerland has done, would be cheaper to administer and would alleviate significant suffering.

James Brokenshire: People subject to the vulnerable persons relocation scheme are also eligible for family reunion under our normal rules. The hon. Lady mentioned Turkey and other countries. Again, it is important to underline that our support has reached hundreds of thousands of people across all 14 governorates of Syria, as well as in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. She is absolutely right to emphasise the impact on other countries.

Karen Buck: Desperate Syrians were heavily over-represented among the 500 people in a boat that sank in the autumn in the eastern Mediterranean, from which there were only 11 survivors. We now know that 3,419 refugees have died in the Mediterranean this year. Does that not underpin the critical importance of not reducing sea rescue efforts in the Mediterranean, while we work to find solutions to the refugee crisis that has engulfed so much of the world?

James Brokenshire: As the hon. Lady will be aware, Operation Triton is being conducted by Frontex along the borders of the southern European Mediterranean countries. It is important to underscore that people are not in any way being left to drown as a consequence of the changes endorsed by all EU member states. I draw her attention to the fact that, on 29 November, a commercial ship under Royal Navy command picked up 145 Syrian migrants in the Mediterranean and landed them in Sicily.

Michael Ellis: May I commend my hon. Friend for the UK’s significant financial contribution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria and the British people for their generosity? Does he share my pride—not the shame that the Labour party is talking about—that the UK is the second largest donor in the world in this instance?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which we need to underscore and recognise. As a country, we should be proud of the extent and scale of the assistance that the UK is providing in-region to those most in need of help. We can stand tall in respect of that contribution.

Pamela Nash: In his earlier responses, the Minister made it very clear that political pressure to reduce net migration has had no impact on the number of refugees this country is accepting. However, he must accept that such a conclusion is inevitable, given that refugees are included in the net migration figures. Why are refugees included in the net migration figures, and will the Home Office now reconsider that matter to avoid such accusations in future?

James Brokenshire: I again entirely reject any assertion that the manner in which net migration statistics are calculated has any bearing or influence at all on this country’s international obligations on humanitarian assistance. Indeed, we should be proud of the work that this country does in providing humanitarian aid, assistance and asylum to those in need. Net migration statistics are calculated on the same basis as in many other countries, and they are drawn up in that manner for use in international comparisons.

David Jones: Any proposals for resettlement must be set in the context of the scale of the problem. Some 1.4 million Syrian refugees are currently resident in Jordan, many of whom are children of school age. Does the Minister agree that activities such as those of the Manchester-based NGO Syrian Women Across Borders, which is educating young Syrian refugees
	in Amman, play an important part in improving the lives of the young Syrian refugees who are struggling against such odds?

James Brokenshire: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the project he mentions. Important facilities are provided through our aid and assistance, and we are funding partners to provide education supply kits in refugee camps in Jordan. That supports the very work he identifies, including the supply of pencils, exercise books and other facilities. In addition, the Government have committed to providing textbooks to benefit at least 300,000 Syrian and Lebanese children attending Lebanese public schools, showing a real focus on children.

Ann McKechin: The Minister stated that there are no quotas for the number of refugees we are taking, but he does not seem, from his answers, to be very proactive in trying to obtain offers of assistance within the United Kingdom. May I suggest that he arranges a summit with the devolved Administrations and local government in England to find out how many authorities are prepared to make offers of assistance so that the UK can increase the number of refugees we take, as many of my constituents are demanding?

James Brokenshire: I know that many local authorities are actively assisting the work of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme—I commend them for doing so—and others are offering help and support. I absolutely endorse the need for more local authorities to come forward to do so. On her suggestion about the devolved Administrations, I will certainly consider what further steps we could take to underline the importance of their contribution, as well as the help that local authorities can give.

Stephen Metcalfe: Having visited a refugee camp on the Syria-Turkey border earlier this year, I am all too aware of the conflict’s impact, especially on children. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the Turks for all they are doing to provide support? Does he agree that the best way to resolve the problem is to find a way to end the war, however difficult that may be? Will he remain committed to providing whatever support is needed both at home and abroad?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has experience of travelling to see the very direct impact of the situation on the ground, and I commend him and other Members from across the House for their work and the real focus and attention that they have given to this very serious issue. He is right to identify Turkey’s contribution. The Prime Minister is in Turkey at the moment, and it is important to work with our international partners to seek to resolve this appalling crisis.

Barry Sheerman: May I point out to the Minister that none of us is criticising the generosity of the population or of our constituents? Britain is doing pretty well on many measures. What the rest of the world are criticising is the lack of leadership and the drift. Here is a Prime Minister—in Turkey—who is regarded by so many allies as a modern-day Neville
	Chamberlain. Where is the determination to sort out this conflict, to face up to the humanitarian crisis and to get allies to work with us, across Governments, to do something about it?

James Brokenshire: The Prime Minister and the Government have shown clear leadership at the UN and elsewhere, and by working bilaterally with other Governments. Indeed, the fact that we have committed £700 million, the biggest aid project this country has ever seen, shows very direct leadership. We are not just talking about it, but actually doing something about it. On that basis, we are showing leadership, and our country can be proud that we are doing so.

Crispin Blunt: Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and my friend the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), I returned from Jordan last week. We visited Syrian refugees in Zaatari and saw the institution that my right hon. Friend referred to. May I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is a particular pity that the enormous amount of aid that the United Kingdom is giving is being overshadowed by the frankly derisory numbers of refugees that we are taking relative to the size of the problem? In addition, despite all the assistance going to particular NGOs and the UN in Jordan, the Jordanian Government’s budget is not receiving the help that it desperately needs given that the Jordanian public services are picking up much of the responsibility.

James Brokenshire: The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is sitting alongside me, will be visiting Amman next week, and I am sure that he has heard clearly the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) makes and will raise them with his opposite numbers and colleagues in the Jordanian Government. However, this country can be proud of the overall contribution that is being made. Each country is providing assistance directly, and we are doing so through significant aid, through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and by providing asylum to those who need it.

Angus MacNeil: When I asked about this issue during Scotland Office questions on 18 December last year, Germany was taking about 80% of the Syrian refugees coming to the EU and Amnesty International said that the amount of help coming from the UK should cause heads to hang in shame. By June, reports were that only 24 Syrians had been relocated to the UK. The SNP Scottish Government want to help and have been in touch with the UK Government. Can the Minister update us on those talks? How many refugees can we hope to welcome to Scotland and give a “Failte gu Alba” to before too long?

James Brokenshire: I note that the hon. Gentleman highlights one individual country within the EU, but each country provides a balance of assistance, whether by accepting people through various schemes or by providing monetary assistance. Each country does so in its own appropriate way. We have said that we will
	provide support under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme to several hundred of those most in need of assistance, and we are providing quarterly updates on that work. The scheme is therefore transparent and clear, and we are obviously continuing our discussions with local authorities and others to see what further assistance they can provide. I will seek to take that further forward following this session.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is right to be proud of the aid that Britain is giving in the region, and to give asylum to Syrian refugees who can make it over here. However, as he knows from our exchanges at the Home Affairs Committee, I believe that the efforts to tackle the problems of the most vulnerable refugees who cannot easily get here are simply tokenistic and fall far short of what Members of all parties agreed when the system was set up. It is far less than other countries are doing. Will the Minister reflect on that? I know that he and the Home Secretary were careful not to give any quotas or numbers, but will he at least try to edge the numbers upwards to deliver what this country would like to see and to help people in need?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend says that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme is in some way not meeting what he sees as the intent behind it, but when the scheme was launched we were clear that it would assist several hundred vulnerable Syrians over the course of three years, and it is doing that and remains absolutely on course to achieve it. Again, I highlight the fact that we are providing assistance to some of the most vulnerable people through our direct aid assistance to individual countries. That aid contribution and the vulnerable persons relocation scheme mean that this country can be proud of what it is doing.

Ian Lucas: The number of people that this country has admitted this year under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme has been, in January, one; in February, none; in March, none; in April, one; in May, one; and in June, four. The Minister looks puzzled, but those figures are from a parliamentary answer that he supplied to me, and they show the priority that he gives the matter. Will he confirm that neither he nor the Home Secretary has ever met the Refugee Council to discuss those shameful figures? Will he please undertake to do that, and to do better from now forward?

James Brokenshire: The vulnerable persons relocation scheme was launched in February and was got up and running within the first two months, which was rapid given the significant needs of so many of the people involved. Many have medical needs and have suffered huge trauma, and the arrangements have been implemented appropriately to ensure that we provide them with the help that they need when they arrive. They do not simply arrive here and then wait for assistance; there is wrap-around care when they arrive in the UK. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is hectoring from his place, but the scheme is working and is providing direct assistance. I am sorry that he does not recognise that, because there are people receiving direct help. I am sorry that he appears to be blind to that.

Margot James: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the quality and extent of British aid is second only to that of the United States. Britain’s historic role and ties in the region put a greater onus on us to play our full part in the resettlement of refugees. What work are the Government doing to encourage more local authorities to sign up to the vulnerable persons relocation scheme?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to underline again the significant contribution that many local authorities are making by allowing people to be located in their area through the scheme and ensuring that essential help and assistance is provided. I certainly encourage more local authorities to come forward, as I have said in response to a number of questions, and I encourage hon. Members of all parties to talk to their local authorities in support of what the Government are doing so that we can ensure that more areas make that assistance available.

Sarah Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is showing real leadership in delivering humanitarian and local support to refugees in Syria. Will he join me in praising the work of Cornish-based ShelterBox, which is doing phenomenal work in Syria right now, ranging from health care to educating children, with the support of the Department for International Development and voluntary donations?

James Brokenshire: I am pleased to offer my support for, and commend the work of, ShelterBox and a number of other charities that are providing direct support and help to people in Syria and other areas affected by conflict. It is also important to underline the contribution that the British public make through their huge generosity to so many charities and aid organisations. As a country, we can be proud not simply of the Government’s work in investing aid money but of the public’s huge contribution and the funding that they are providing to give direct assistance.

Stephen Pound: The Minister has used the word “proud” eight times so far today. Many of my constituents are proud of the immense courage of the Syrian and Assyrian Christian communities that are currently facing a fearful and frozen future in a part of the world where they have lived for centuries but where they may simply not be able to survive much longer. Many of my constituents have offered accommodation—they have offered homes and bedrooms, and they have offered succour to those people. Will the Minister agree to collate the information about such offers and feed it in to the UNHCR, which will be responsible for the first year’s cost of any resettlement, to see whether the British people can show their pride in a courageous Christian community in the same way that he has shown his pride? Winter is coming fast to the region, and we have very little time.

James Brokenshire: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points. There are a number of persecuted communities, and he rightly highlights the situation in Iraq. I also recognise, from the letters that I see, the number of individuals who want to contribute. The most effective way for them to do that is through their local authorities
	and the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, but we continue to have discussions with the UNHCR, which identifies individuals who come through that scheme, and we will always reflect on what further information we can provide and how we can make the scheme work as effectively as possible.

Jason McCartney: My constituent, Razan Alsous, fled Syria two years ago and thanks to a new enterprise allowance now runs an award-winning Yorkshire halloumi cheese-making factory in Linthwaite. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Razan and other Syrian refugees who are making such a positive contribution to our communities?

James Brokenshire: I am pleased to congratulate Razan and all those who are making a new life in the UK, contributing to and enriching our communities. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme is precisely to provide such assistance and enable people to escape the conflict and settle into the relevant communities, and that is the reason for our measured approach.

Debbie Abrahams: Britain has a proud history of providing refuge and asylum, but I share the concerns of a number of hon. Members about how that issue has been confused with a wider debate on immigration, including data collection. I am still unclear—perhaps the Minister can help me—why we have set up a parallel programme to that of the United Nations, and about the criteria used for relocation. For example, will families be relocated close to other Syrians or family members?

James Brokenshire: The scheme operates in close conjunction with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We judged it best to contribute through a complementary scheme, working in partnership with the UNHCR and focusing exclusively on the most vulnerable cases, particularly women and children at risk, those in need of medical assistance, and survivors of torture and violence. As I said, this is the first scheme of its kind in the UK with that direct focus. The UNHCR will make recommendations about those who are appropriate and suitable for the scheme, and through that complementary work we are actively supporting its efforts.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing this urgent question, and the Minister on the excellent way he is responding. I disagree with the Opposition, however, because surely the Prime Minister has shown great leadership not only on Syria but on overseas aid. We are the second highest contributor of aid, but I think we have been concentrating too much on the money. Will the Minister say what that money is doing for people on the ground?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about the way that aid money provides assistance to hundreds of thousands of people. That money means food, water and shelter, and I have already mentioned the books that are being provided and other assistance to ensure that children receive an education despite their displacement from within Syria. The money is providing direct, practical, real-life assistance and we should underline work that has been done to
	ensure that we meet aid commitments, as well as the leadership being shown. As my hon. Friend said, I think the Prime Minister has shown leadership not only in Syria but on many other things as well.

Paul Flynn: Rochdale has more asylum seekers than the entire south-east of England. Cardiff has 900, Newport 400, but the Minister’s constituency has 33. The Home Secretary’s constituency has one—an increase on last year. Would it be far easier to rescue more people from that hell if the burden that asylum seekers place on local authority services was spread fairly? What will the Minister do to stand tall and proud in his constituency and prepare it to take a fair share of asylum seekers?

James Brokenshire: We work regionally with local authorities and I have had a number of meetings to see how the Home Office can work towards and assist a further spread of those in receipt of asylum across the regions. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about ensuring that more local authorities receive asylum applicants, and I have been taking forward discussions in a number of areas to ensure that new local authorities, and others in the region, play their part in providing asylum support.

Sheila Gilmore: A substantial number of my constituents have recently contacted me about this issue because they care and see its importance. They thought that the debate earlier this year about whether we should resettle people or act in the area had been resolved when the Home Secretary said that we would seek to take in several hundreds of refugees under this scheme over three years. Currently, however, the numbers involved are tiny, and I have heard nothing from the Minister about why those numbers are so small or what plans he has to honour that commitment to take in several hundreds of refugees?

James Brokenshire: I recognise the care and concern over this situation felt by many people across the country, and that is testament to the nature of this country and the values we hold. The Government were clear that the scheme would provide assistance to several hundred people over three years, as the hon. Lady rightly highlighted, and we are doing that. We remain firmly on course to seek to meet that objective and aim, and we will provide quarterly updates on our progress. We have provided the figures to September and further updates will follow. She will see that we are meeting our commitments and providing the help that is needed.

Andrew Love: Along with the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), I
	visited Jordan recently and saw for myself the tremendous work that has been done using British aid funds to feed and shelter massive numbers of refugees. We also visited a British Syrian charity to see its work in looking after women and children, and particularly the rehabilitation needs of those who directly and abruptly became victims of the conflict in Syria. Many of those people would be appropriate and suitable for the vulnerable persons scheme, and I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the need in countries such as Jordan because the numbers are huge.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the scale and impact of what is happening in that region, and that is why we remain in close contact with the Government of Jordan and are providing assistance. He is right to say that those who have been traumatised may be appropriate for the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and we are working with the UNHCR to ensure that those who come to the UK have their needs identified. We work closely with them so that once they arrive they can receive direct medical or other assistance from the word go. That is why the scheme is—rightly, I think—being undertaken in that way, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting his direct experience.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister said earlier that the withdrawal of the wider search and rescue scheme in the Mediterranean had not led to more people drowning. He cannot possibly know that, however, because the new Operation Triton only operates close to the Italian coast. Given evidence that people are still dying in their hundreds and thousands in the Mediterranean, and that the Italian navy is putting about one third of its boats at the service of the new rescue operation, should the UK and the rest of the EU be thinking about a wider search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean? How many people is the UK assisting Italy with in Operation Triton?

James Brokenshire: The decision taken on Mare Nostrum was endorsed by all EU member states because it was felt that the programme was leading to more people putting themselves at risk, and—sadly—more people dying. More than 3,000 people have died crossing the Mediterranean already this year compared with 700 in the previous year. The UK is not part of Frontex, which is the EU body that leads the current work on a pan-EU basis, but we are nevertheless providing two debriefers and a nationality expert to support the operation, and considering what other resources we can provide. On search and rescue, if a vessel is in distress, another vessel in the vicinity will clearly seek to come to its aid. Indeed, as I have already highlighted, a Royal Navy commanded vessel did precisely that in recent weeks.

Preparing Young People for Work

Nicky Morgan: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the next phase of our plan for education—preparing young people for the world of work.
	Ensuring that young people leave school or college prepared for life in modern Britain is a central tenet of the Government’s plan for education, and a vital part of our long-term economic plan for Britain. It is the students of today who will be the work force of tomorrow and on whom the future success of our economy—and everything that flows from that—will depend. That is why our plan will ensure that every young person learns the knowledge, skills and values they need to be able to leave school or college ready to fulfil their potential and succeed in life.
	The Government have done a huge amount to raise standards in our schools. We now have a million more pupils in good and outstanding schools—more than ever before; 100,000 more six-year-olds are now on track to become confident readers because of our focus on phonics; the number of pupils taking core academic GCSEs is up by 60% since 2009-10 thanks to the EBacc; and, critically, we now have the most highly qualified teaching profession ever, with more graduates from top universities choosing teaching than ever before.
	While helping every child to master the basics is vital, I am clear that it is only the start. Schools and colleges have a broader role to play in preparing young people for adult life. That is why I recently allocated £5 million of funding to support new, innovative projects that build character, resilience and grit—because as much as I want the next generation to be able to solve a quadratic equation, I also want them to be able to make a compelling pitch for a job, and to be able to bounce back if things do not work out. It is also why today I am setting out an ambitious new approach to the way we open young people’s eyes to the world of work.
	It is widely acknowledged that careers provision in schools has long been inadequate. To date, we have encouraged schools and colleges to take the lead. We have placed a clear duty on them to provide students with access to impartial advice and guidance. But, though we published an inspiration vision statement in September 2013 and strengthened the statutory guidance to support schools and colleges in making this vision a reality, it is clear that many schools and colleges need additional support if we are to ensure every young person—regardless of background or location—receives the life-changing advice and inspiration that they need to fulfil their potential and succeed in life. That is a view supported by a number of respected contributors in this area, including OFSTED, the National Careers Council, the Sutton Trust, the Gatsby Foundation and the Education Committee, as well as many employers, sector experts, and schools and colleges themselves.
	Some schools and colleges are doing great things to ensure that their students access the necessary support, but too often provision is patchy. Already busy schools and teachers do not always have the time to give this the focus they should. Meanwhile, many organisations—including employers—offer excellent programmes for
	young people. The challenge before us is how to ensure that every young person in every part of the country is given access to them.
	I have consistently heard calls from both employers and schools and colleges to help them navigate this complex landscape and to spread the good practice that is happening in some parts of the country to all. Today I am answering those calls. I am pleased to tell the House that Christine Hodgson, chair of Capgemini UK and someone with a strong track record of developing young talent, will chair a new careers and enterprise company for schools. This will transform the provision of careers education and advice for young people and inspire them to take control of and shape their own futures.
	The company will support much greater engagement between employers on one hand and schools and colleges on the other. It will ensure that young people get the inspiration and guidance they need to leave school or college ready to succeed in working life. It will be employer led, but will work closely with the education and careers sectors. It will also act as an umbrella organisation to help employers, schools and colleges and other organisations navigate their way through the existing landscape. It will provide a vehicle to help other organisations co-ordinate their activities where appropriate.
	The company will not itself be a direct delivery organisation, or act in competition with the many existing providers in the market. Instead, it will help schools, colleges, organisations and employers work together in partnership. The company will focus on the offer to young people, initially those aged 12 to 18. It will work closely with the National Careers Service, which will continue to support adults and young people and help the company to bring employers, schools and colleges together.
	It will be for the new company’s board to set its own strategy but we envisage that it will do a number of things. It will use relationships with employers—private, public and third sector—to break down barriers between schools and colleges on the one hand and employers on the other, and increase the level of employer input into careers, inspiration and enterprise in all schools and colleges. It will do that partly through a network of advisers who will broker strong and extensive links at local level. It will assist schools and colleges in choosing effective careers and enterprise organisations to partner with, including considering the use of quality marks. It will stimulate more and better activity in areas where the current provision is poorest. Last but not least, it will develop an enterprise passport to incentivise young people to participate in a wide range of extra-curricular activities that boost their appeal to employers, as well as their enterprise skills.
	The network of advisers and the enterprise passport are ideas championed most effectively by my noble Friend Lord Young, to whom I should like to pay generous tribute for his invaluable work in this area. His report, “Enterprise for All”, has informed our thinking about the way forward. I am also grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his officials in ensuring that our work reflects the needs of employers and business and for providing £1.4 million this year to ensure that the company makes a strong start. It is also important to say that this announcement builds on the
	work already under way in this area, such as the common online application portal being developed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for business and skills.
	The Government will support the new company with start-up funding in 2015-16, the cost of which will be met from the £20 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in last week’s autumn statement. Some £5 million of this will constitute an investment fund to support innovation and stimulate good practice across the country. In the longer term, the company will sustain itself.
	I am confident that the plan I have announced today will build on the excellent work that is already going on in some parts of the country, but will ensure it is replicated in every part of the country. It will herald a step change in the quality of careers inspiration, advice and guidance provided to all young people, paying no regard to ability, interest or background, and it will help to realise our ambition of ensuring that every child leaves school or college prepared for life in modern Britain. We know that the ultimate success of our long-term economic plan for this country rests on the shoulders of the next generation, and we are backing them every step of the way. I commend the statement to the House.

Tristram Hunt: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of this statement—on page six of The Sun. As we approach the 750th anniversary of the de Montfort Parliament, I would have expected a little more respect for this institution. Parliamentary democracy is, after all, a British value.
	Education is the handmaiden of a competitive economy, but the Government’s education policy has systematically undermined young people’s preparation for the world of work. Secondary work experience placements have been scrapped; practical assessments have been removed; young apprenticeships have been devalued; and a teacher supply crisis looms in the STEM subjects so critical for this country’s future prospects. But it is the dismantling of careers advice that stands among the Government’s greatest crimes.
	As the CBI has said, our careers advice system is “in severe crisis”. The Chairman of the Education Committee, who is not in his place, has said that the state of the careers service
	“should shame the Department for Education”.
	Sir Michael Wilshaw pointed out on the radio this morning that
	“careers education is particularly bad”.
	Famously, prisoners get more careers advice than school pupils under this Government.
	The Opposition take these warnings seriously. That is why we want to see work experience guaranteed for every secondary school pupil; a governor responsible for enterprise and careers education on every governing body; new destination measures, so that all schools track pupils into work, apprenticeships and higher education; more support for innovative careers education charities such as Future First, which is doing such a
	tremendous job to spread alumni network opportunities to disadvantaged schools; and a vocational education system that spreads opportunity and excellence to those young people who want to pursue high quality apprenticeships.
	Today’s announcement is perfectly welcome as far as it goes, but, to be frank, even for this Government it is pretty undercooked. What was the bidding process for the new company receiving £1.6 million of taxpayers’ money? What will the company actually do? What are its costs? What is its strategy? How will it stimulate “more and better activity”? What will its relationships with employers be? This is a piecemeal, scattergun approach. Astonishingly—it is very good see the Business Secretary in his place—the statement does not even mention local enterprise partnerships. If we are to have joined-up government on careers advice, I would have thought that at least the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills could talk to each other.
	In short, like the Secretary of State’s tenure in office, today’s announcement signally fails to rise to the challenge. The Secretary of State could have said something strategic about the competitiveness challenge we face. She could have highlighted Lord Adonis’s scheme for directors of enterprise, the CBI’s local brokers model or the Gatsby Foundation’s 10 benchmarks. Instead, she has retreated to the Tory comfort zone of Lord Young, whom we on the Opposition Benches remember for putting a lot of young people out of work. In a week when Britain faces a skills crisis and has had to import brickies from Poland, when the chief inspector of schools has highlighted the failure of Government policy in raising standards in secondary education, and when a leading head teacher has said the Secretary of State is “just not up to the job”, this country deserves better than this poorly thought through end-of-term initiative.

Nicky Morgan: I think that among all the rhetoric and playing to his own gallery the shadow Secretary of State actually welcomed the announcement. He represents the Labour party. As one of his colleagues said, the clue is in the title: it is all about representing working people. That is what we on the Government Benches are doing.
	If the shadow Secretary of State wants to see a failure to prepare young people for the life of work, he ought to be thinking about the fact that under the previous Labour Government one in three of our young people were leaving primary school unable to read and write. That is a shocking statistic.
	We have the lowest number of NEETs since records began. Yesterday saw the announcement of the 2 millionth apprentice. Those of us on the Government Benches want to go further. The Chancellor, in the autumn statement last week, confirmed his support for the employment of younger people through continued national insurance tax breaks. The shadow Secretary of State called for destination measures. He must have missed the announcement, because we have done that and we are going to enhance them. He called for support for careers organisations. That has been done and that is exactly what this organisation will do. The company will be an employer-led company. There will be an advisory board. The Government are backing and setting up the company, which has been called for by business organisations for many, many years. Some £20 million
	is being put behind this company and we will of course let the House know how that money is spent. I mentioned the £5 million investment fund. The company will of course work with the local enterprise partnerships, which are critical to supplying both investment in skills and local labour market information.
	The shadow Secretary of State could have said something about his plan for education, but as always he retreated to his comfort zone. As always, he talked about some of the problems he saw, but nothing positive about the hard-working teachers and school leaders up and down the country who have willingly taken this on and know best what is right for their students and the inspiration for their future. Today’s announcement is about making sure that schools broker good and deep relationships with employers and businesses, and that young people are inspired by all the options open to them in the future. All the shadow Secretary of State’s response showed was the continuing failure of the Opposition’s education policy, and the fact that he and the Labour party have no plan for young people.

Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State ensure that help from employers will grow, including in particular from the overwhelming number of tiny employers on the island?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right. One of the issues for smaller businesses is that it is difficult to build links with schools—it is often difficult to know who to contact. As I said in my statement, when schools are busy it is difficult for them to know which businesses they should be contacting. The company we are setting up today will have advisers in all parts of the country to broker those links and to ensure that our young people find out about all careers, whether they are in big or small companies or in the public sector, and apprenticeships and going on to further study.

Bill Esterson: When I heard there would be a statement from the Secretary of State for Education today I thought it might be about the warnings from Ofsted about low standards in secondary schools. I thought it might even have been about the tender opportunity that has appeared on the Department for Education website for the privatisation of children’s social care. I was therefore very surprised at the actual choice. As the statement was on preparing young people for the world of work, may I tell the Secretary of State what the witnesses to this morning’s Select Committee on Education had to say about 16-to-19 apprenticeships? They all agree that her proposals for apprenticeships are nothing short of a train wreck. I urge her to listen to their calls for greater quality apprenticeships that are matched to each individual, and to have a complete rethink to get rid of the increase in bureaucracy that she is proposing.

Nicky Morgan: First, the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the proposals for children’s social care services is absolutely wrong. We have absolutely and categorically ruled out any form of privatisation in relation to those services. I have no idea where he has got that from. All we hear from the Opposition Benches is more negativity about the proposals to inspire our young people about all the options open to them. He mentioned apprenticeships.
	He ought to reflect on the fact that we have seen more great apprenticeships right across the country. Already this week, we have celebrated the 2 millionth apprentice and she is to be congratulated on signing up to it.

Caroline Dinenage: I warmly welcome the statement. For so long, businesses have been calling for an antidote to the painfully inadequate careers advice, supervised by the previous Labour Government, that spectacularly failed to prepare young people for the world of work. Will the Secretary of State confirm how the proposals will counter the lack of awareness of the value of apprenticeships and solid vocational routes?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Schools already have a duty to ensure that young people are advised independently on all the options open to them. There is no doubt that one of the things we hear when we go around the country is the positive nature of apprenticeships, but often young people find out about them through a roundabout route. The company will be working with organisations such as the National Apprenticeship Service, but one of the most powerful things is for employers to go into schools and speak about the opportunities available to them. I was at Crossrail yesterday talking to one of the apprentices. We hope very much that he, and other apprentices, will go back into schools to talk about their experiences in the world of work.

Heidi Alexander: I am the daughter of a skilled manual worker and I went to an ordinary comprehensive school. When I was growing up I simply did not understand what jobs existed or how one might progress from entry-level jobs to top positions. What makes the Secretary of State so confident that her announcement today will change that, because it is still a problem for many young people?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and I agree with her that that is one of the issues. The whole point about the body is that it will be employer led. I mean “employer” in the widest sense of the word. It may very well be that young people have never thought about setting up their own company, or that they are not aware of the opportunities available to them in the third sector, the public sector or the private sector. The body is needed to inspire young people, and to tell them about all the options open to them, the fact that often they may go from one career to another and the impact of the subject choices they make at school. I want young people to be advised early on, when they are making GCSE choices and before they get any further, on their subject choices and on the amazing careers that are open to them. We saw this week the publication of a report that mentions 40 jobs that were not available even a few years ago. The jobs landscape is changing all the time.

Simon Wright: I welcome the new careers company, which I hope will help schools to promote opportunities for young people. Thousands of my constituents have jobs in the public sector. Will the Secretary of State inform the House how public sector employers will be involved in the careers and enterprise company and its advisory board?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We want to ensure that the widest possible options and inspiration are available to all our young people, and we intend that various large public sector organisations will have a role on the advisory board—for example, the NHS, which employs 5 million people, and the armed forces, which are a huge source of career opportunities for our young people.

Sammy Wilson: Given the skills shortage highlighted this year, there is clearly a need for an organisation to enhance careers education in schools. What does the Secretary of State mean when she says that in the longer term she envisages this company sustaining itself? Does that mean a charge to the schools, to the employers or to both?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the creation of this company. I intend that in the longer term employers will see the value of the company and therefore will invest in it.

Edward Leigh: I agreed with the Secretary of State when she said:
	“as much as I want the next generation to be able to solve a quadratic equation, I also want them to be able to make a compelling pitch for a job”.
	If we are going to win the global race for excellence, we need top-flight scientists and mathematicians, and a disproportionate number of them are provided by our remaining 160 grammar schools, yet under this Government funding for grammar schools has been cut, meaning that the top-performing grammar school in Lincolnshire gets £4,000 per pupil per year and the worst-performing comprehensive gets £7,000 per head per year. We must do more to help our excellent schools provide the top-class mathematicians of the future.

Nicky Morgan: I am not sure I agree with the entirety of my hon. Friend’s question, but I agreed with his final point: we must ensure that all our schools are good or outstanding local schools and are encouraging our young people to consider studying science and maths for longer. As we have seen, it makes a difference to young people’s earnings. The best way to improve social mobility is for all our schools to be good or outstanding, and, since 2010, 1 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State wants people to be positive, and I want to be positive, about this initiative. She will know that I co-chair the Skills Commission, which reported last week on the relevant skills for the changing nature of work. I hope she had a chance to look at the report. If we are to be positive, we have to start with a partnership, but over the past four and a half years, she and the Government have destroyed the old fabric of careers advice in our schools. That has to be rebuilt. I have nothing against the new company, but I would like to know more about it: is it third sector, a company limited by guarantee, a private company? Whatever it is, all of us who care about the future of our young people want it to succeed. We will work with her, but only on the realistic basis of what we need into the 21st century.

Nicky Morgan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted my challenge to be positive, and I think the tenor of his remarks fulfilled that criterion, so I welcome them. I intend and hope that the company will be a community interest company, but that will be a matter for the new chair, in particular, to take forward. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that we need better-skilled people, but that is what the former careers service failed absolutely to deliver, which is why we have a skills shortage now. We do not have people inspired by the options and careers available. Working with schools, which know their students best, is what the company will do. It is right, therefore, that schools have a duty to procure good and excellent careers advice and guidance, and this company will play an important part in ensuring that all kinds of employers can get into schools and inspire young people for the future.

Chris Skidmore: I welcome today’s statement. One of the Government’s flagship policies for preparing young people for the world of work is the studio schools initiative, and recently I campaigned successfully for a £3 million studio school on the site of the Grange school in Warmley, but today South Gloucestershire councillors are voting on whether to close the existing Grange school. I fought hard for the studio school so that pupils at the Grange could continue their education at the new school. Will the Secretary of State meet me to ensure that pupils at the Grange who wish to continue their education at the studio school will be given the opportunity to do so and have the place in the new school they deserve?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the diversity of schools in our system is fundamental to the driving up of standards we have seen. As I said in my statement, for example, more students are taking EBacc subjects, which are leading to higher academic standards, and I am a great supporter of studio schools. I heard what he said, and I will try to meet him, but if I cannot one of my Ministers will do so urgently.

Debbie Abrahams: I share the concerns of my hon. Friends about the status of the new company. Is it a private company? It is being set up with public money. Given the Public Accounts Committee’s report this morning, which suggests that public money given to private companies is often not spent well, how will we ensure that public money is held to account, and what specifically will it be doing?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Lady got to the nub of the issue at the end of her question—what the company will actually be doing on the ground. When Labour has nothing else to say about a proposal, it obsesses about process. I have already mentioned that the company will be a community interest company, and it will of course explain to Parliament what it has done with the public money it receives. It will be doing a variety of different things, but one thing I do not want it to do is to quash the good practice already out there. There are already many excellent schemes involving the brightest and best schools linking to employers. We want to build on that and spread it across the country, including to schools in her constituency. I think the young people in her constituency will welcome these opportunities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her announcement; it is a great step forward. Does she agree that we need to match the skills that schools teach to those that employers require? In that respect, would she encourage employers, LEPs and local authorities to carry out accurate skills audits so that schools know what those skills are?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must ensure that our young people have the skills to prepare them for life in modern Britain, which means, for most of them, getting jobs and knowing what jobs are out there. He is right to say that skills audits are critical, which is where the LEPs will come in, and that it is a partnership between different organisations, including local authorities, LEPs and employers.

Nicholas Dakin: Unfortunately, mistakes the Government made early in this Parliament have left work experience and careers information, advice and guidance in the worst state it has been in during my lifetime. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and her personal commitment to putting this right, but the devil will be in the detail. Are there any guarantees for young people in relation to access to work experience and face-to-face information, advice and guidance, which is at the heart of a good system?

Nicky Morgan: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support, which I know is heartfelt, and I know he has a lot of experience, from before he entered the House, in the further education sector. Schools and colleges already have a duty to offer impartial advice and guidance, which can include one-to-one, face-to-face interviews, as well as work experience. The purpose of the company is to support schools and colleges in order to fulfil our commitments. From conversations I have had around the country, I know that many busy teachers, heads and leaders in education welcome the opportunity and support the company will provide in terms of employers coming in and talking to students. I suspect we will want to see work experience opportunities, job interviews and all sorts of other things as well. On the changes made this Parliament, the point is that having an external service was not the right way to go. It is right for the schools, which know their students, to identify and support them in making those choices.

Nigel Evans: It would appear that hyperbolic nonsense is not just the preserve of BBC “Today” journalists, but shared by the shadow Secretary of State for Education. I think this is a great statement. As the Secretary of State knows, I represent a rural constituency with a diverse range of schools, from grammar to comprehensive, from denominational to non-denominational. Will she guarantee that the exciting services being offered today will be offered with rurality and diversity in mind?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want all schools to participate in this scheme, supported by employers. What we have already seen as a result of the educational changes that this Government have brought in is more collaboration and partnership between schools of all different kinds. This company will serve many different schools. One point captured in my hon. Friend’s question is that we see some of this good
	practice in some parts of the country, but we do not see it everywhere. I think that every child in this country is entitled to be inspired about their future.

Pamela Nash: I agree that every young person in this country deserves to be inspired about their future, and I am happy to hear the Secretary of State saying that and expressing her opinions on giving good quality careers advice. Unfortunately, that does not match with the recent record of this Government. While I welcome any investment in careers advice, £20 million is equivalent to around only £3 a head for every young person. Does she really think that this will fix the problems caused by this Government?

Nicky Morgan: In going around talking to organisations and schools across the country, I have found that it is not so much a matter of financial issues as of the lack of contacts. That is what the company is all about—brokering links between employers and businesses and schools. Yes, I am absolutely confident that this will make a difference. It is part of the careers landscape and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

Andrew Percy: I cannot claim to be the daughter of a skilled worker, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) did, but I can claim to be the son of a skilled manual worker and to be someone who attended a pretty bog standard and quite poor comprehensive school. Is not the truth that poor-performing comprehensives cannot possibly offer the sort of links to employers that posh private schools, such as those attended by various Members, can? How will this announcement ensure that those who attend what have been called “bog standard” comprehensives get access to proper workplace experience?

Nicky Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend had direct teaching experience in colleges before he came here. Returning to my previous answer, we know that the good links, as my hon. Friend says, happen in some schools in some parts of the country. What this company will do through a network of enterprise and employment advisers is to make sure that the links between schools and businesses and employers happen right across the country. Some schools are very fortunate in having a large successful company down the road that offers an excellent scheme, but many schools are not in that position. Yet there are some fantastic businesses out there, often perhaps in the supply chain or in the service sector, looking for the next great generation of employees—and I am absolutely convinced that they are in the schools that my hon. Friend mentions.

Angela Watkinson: May I commend to the Secretary of State the excellent schools, colleges and academies in Hornchurch and Upminster, and the pre-apprenticeship and skills training organisations there? They all recognise the importance of employability skills—having good oral, social and interpersonal skills, good timekeeping and good manners. Does she agree that, without those skills, no matter how good a pupil’s qualifications, they are unlikely to compete very well at interview? Will the new organisation take that into consideration?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Organisations, employers and businesses up and down the country talk about that. As I said in the statement, rigorous academic standards are, of course, important, but so are the employability skills that she mentions. That is why I have also focused since my appointment on the importance of character education—the resilience, the grit, the persistence, the self-confidence, the self-esteem—that we want to see developed in our young people. I think that having employers and businesses involved in schools will help to shape those employability skills that she rightly mentions.

Justin Tomlinson: My careers advice teacher assured me I had no chance of becoming an MP when I was older. What role do we see for the National Citizen Service providers and organisations such as the scouts and guides?

Nicky Morgan: I am not sure that my careers adviser even told me about the option of becoming a Member of Parliament. I discovered that via a roundabout route. My hon. Friend is right to say that the £5 million investment fund that we are going to launch via the company will allow organisations such as the scouts, guides, the National Employer Service and others—including Young Chamber, to which I have spoken recently—to make a bid either to fund new activities or to scale up existing activities so that they are spread around the country, offering the opportunity to acquire employability skills.

Margot James: I welcome the additional support for careers guidance in schools and colleges. Will my right hon. Friend consider using a proportion of this money, or asking the new company to use a proportion of this money, to tackle the outdated images of industries such as manufacturing and construction, which put so many young people off considering a career in these vital and growing sectors of our economy?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about inspiring our young people to consider all the different careers out there. Various sectors have changed over the years. For example, we see much more advanced high-tech manufacturing nowadays. I am passionate about ensuring that our girls and young women are inspired to go into sectors that they might not traditionally have considered. That is why I am so passionate, too, about backing campaigns such as Your Life.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this announcement, and particularly on the appointment of Christine Hodgson, who is an inspirational business leader. Does my right hon. Friend agree that getting role models into schools—whether they are business leaders or successful apprentices—is vital, and can she explain how this company will be able to support that move?

Nicky Morgan: I echo my hon. Friend’s words about Christine Hodgson. Christine champions the Work Inspiration initiative, which is a national employer-led campaign targeting young people to make their first experience in the workplace meaningful. She is also involved in business and the community. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that she is a great role model for all young people, but particularly for young women, encouraging them to see the senior roles they could play in companies. I mentioned the idea of having more apprentices going back to their former schools to talk about the opportunities open to them. Seeing employers working in exciting sectors will open up eyes and inspire the next generation.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome today’s statement, but bearing in mind the very low proportion of girls participating, can the Secretary of State assure me that girls and their families will be encouraged to overcome stereotypes and to consider careers and apprenticeships in engineering and technology?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about ensuring that all our young people are inspired about the career options, including a wide number of new careers, open to them. As I said, I am passionate about making sure that more girls are studying science and maths for longer, which is why we are backing the Your Life campaign and working with organisations such as the Institution of Engineering and Technology. She mentioned families, and this is very important too. For many families, it is easier to give advice about careers that are known about, but much harder to inspire young people to take up careers they know little about, which is where this company will come in.

Andrew Stephenson: In Pendle we have seen a big reduction in the number of young people not in education, employment or training. We have also seen the number of young people undertaking an apprenticeship double. However, some of our local apprenticeships providers such as the Nelson and Colne college are now struggling to find young people to fill the apprenticeship vacancies available with local employers. How will today’s proposals increase the awareness of apprenticeships and vocational routes for our young people?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend mentioned employers in his constituency that are looking for apprentices and appreciate the vocational and technical route through to careers. Because the company is employer-led, it will be able to go into and work with schools and colleges to identify those for whom apprenticeships might never have been suggested, but who might be interested once the high-quality apprenticeships available in the 21st century are explained to them. I suspect that many young people will decide that those opportunities provide the right career path for them.

Points of Order

Andy Slaughter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a debate on consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on 1 December, the Lord Chancellor, while addressing the judicial review clauses in the Bill, misled this House—a matter that he corrected in a letter dated 4 December to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), a copy of which was subsequently placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	In that letter, the Lord Chancellor wrote:
	“As we discussed, during what was a complicated debate, I inadvertently suggested to you that clause 64 contains a provision for the court to grant permission to proceed with a judicial review where conduct is highly likely to have not made a difference if it considered there were exceptional circumstances to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that that is not the case. No such exceptional circumstances provision exists in this clause.”
	Given that this misrepresentation goes to the heart of the Government’s proposals for judicial review in the Bill, I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether it is sufficient by way of correction to write to only one Member who took part in the debate and then to place a copy of that letter in the Libraries. Would it not be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to correct the record? I ask that particularly because it was clear from the debate in the other place yesterday on this House’s disagreements with the Lords amendments that the noble Lords taking part were unaware of the Lord Chancellor’s correction.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly reasonable point of order. It is certainly the case that, when a Minister has inadvertently misled the House, it is essential for that Minister to put the matter straight. In this instance, it appears that the Minister has written to the Member concerned, and has, with all honesty and courtesy, sought to put the matter straight. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that that is not adequate. Whether it is adequate or not is a matter of judgment, particularly for the Minister concerned.
	I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw the matter to wider attention, and, by making his point of order, he has done so. I think that he has done so effectively, because I see that Ministers are taking note of what he has said and of what I am saying, and I have no doubt that the matter will be drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. I should add that, although the hon. Gentleman mentioned the debate that took place in another place yesterday, there will of course be another opportunity for this House to debate the substantive matters in the near future, and I have every confidence that the Lord Chancellor will take that opportunity to set the record straight. I also have every confidence that if he does not do so, the hon. Gentleman will insist that he does. The Chair will also keep an eye on the matter.

Stewart Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that, in the wake of Prime Minister’s Questions, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the former Health Secretary, attempted to rebut what the Deputy Prime Minister had said about the facts of the franchise agreement for Hinchingbrooke hospital—the first privatisation of an acute district hospital in the NHS. He used words to the effect of “I did not sign off the privatisation.” However, on 27 March 2010, The Times recorded that he had signed the agreement to restrict the number of providers to just three, in the private sector. I fear that he may therefore have inadvertently misled the House with a slightly disingenuous response. I wonder whether you have been given notice that he will come to the House in the next few days to correct the record.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The fact that we have heard one genuine point of order does not mean that it should be assumed that all other points of order are anything more than attempts to extend the debate. However, I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and, again, I am sure that Ministers—and, in this instance, the colleagues of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—have taken note of what he has said.

Planning Consent Applications (Contracts)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Nigel Evans: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require applicants for planning consent to enter into a contract with the relevant planning authority setting out certain undertakings relating to the application for planning consent; to provide that failure to meet those undertakings would result in withdrawal of any planning consent granted; and for connected purposes.
	Planning is one of the issues that can dominate the lives of Members of Parliament. Passions run high, and rightly so. We have no power over the local authority when a planning application is received, but we can receive many e-mails and letters from constituents who are animated by the application to build. We have the ability to write to the chairman of planning and the other committee members, and to officers, and hopefully the local authority will recognise that we have a legitimate right to express a view on our own behalf and on behalf of our constituents. However, we do not have a vote at planning meetings. On more than one occasion I have expressed opposition to an application which has then been approved, but it has been far worse for me when I have opposed an application—such as the one in Barrow, a small village in my constituency—and the local authority has listened to my representations and those of the local councillor and residents.
	In the Barrow case, what was worse was that, as the authority was deliberating, the landowner claimed non-determination after 13 weeks. His planning lawyer stated that the homes in question needed to be built, and that they would start to be built in 2015. We are now at the end of the current year. Approval was given in February 2014, 10 months ago. Reserved matters have not been claimed for any part of the land, which was originally for sale at £23 million. So much for the urgency of building those houses.
	Let us consider the specifics of the Barrow case. A resident who came to see me after the inspector had approved the application said, barely restraining his anger, “Mr Evans, you know and I know that with all the building that is going on at the moment in the area, this site is not going to be developed any time soon.” I agreed with him. Building is already going on in the village. Hundreds more houses are actually being built a short distance away, in Whalley. In Calderstones, a bit further away, more houses have been and are being built. A development of well over 100 houses off Mitton road has been allowed on appeal. In Accrington road, Whalley, 87 houses were approved two years ago. You have guessed it: not a single brick has been laid, and no reserved matters have been sought.
	Some of these developments have been built, and others have not. The uncertainty is awful, and it does not help local authorities to plan for new schools, roads or other infrastructure improvements. One of the Whalley developments of 80 houses has not been started, although three years have elapsed since permission was given, but a reserved matters application has just been received by the local authority. All those applications have infrastructure implications.
	My Barrow resident believed that many years would pass before the development of 504 houses was built, and that, in the meantime, his own house and those of everyone else in the area who wished to sell would be blighted. Uncertainty about when building will start, when it will be completed, and whether changes will be made in the initial outline application—the five-year land supply figures could be altered, so developers might argue that the land supply figure for the area was no longer being met—has caused an enormous headache for local authorities generally.
	Small local authorities find it even more difficult to cope, because, during this crazy period between the adoption and full approval of core strategies, developers are trying it on all over the place. Fortunately, Ribble Valley is close to having its core strategy fully approved—it is in its final stages—but developers have worked overtime putting in applications left, right and centre, and appealing against virtually every one that is turned down by the local authority. The cost to the council has been prohibitive, and has led it to question whether it can afford to appeal in the case of some applications. There will be a further problem if some of the approvals simply do not materialise if work starts, and other developers point the finger at the authority and accuses it of falling below its five-year supply. The chairman of planning at Ribble Valley council, Terry Hill, has said that, in this case,
	”the Local Authority is not responsible for the under supply”.
	The uncertainty has been created by the very industry that could profit from the approval of more applications directly by the council or on appeal by an inspector. It has left residents angry and their properties blighted, and they must reduce the asking prices of their properties dramatically if they need to move quickly.
	I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for supplying me with information on the existing powers of local authorities, and on unimplemented permissions and land banking. Conditions may be imposed by a local authority, but the criteria are open to interpretation, which means more uncertainty. One of the conditions may be that the development should be carried out in its entirety, but no mention is made of time scale. Completion notices are therefore seldom used as a local authority power. Indeed, a local authority does not have the power to require a developer to complete the development.
	My Bill will rebalance the position, so that, at the outset of an application, far more thought is given by developers to what they are requesting. They will need to bring forward to the inception of the application matters that they normally leave until much later. They will need to make clear the start and completion dates of the development via a contract. Land banking and the blighting of people’s homes will no longer be acceptable.
	The Library paper—admittedly, using historic figures—states that at the end of 2011, there were 399,816 unbuilt homes with planning permission, and building work had yet to start on 52% of the uncompleted developments. One development was completed last year, eight and three quarter years after planning permission was granted. The Government should look at fining powers for unstarted permissions or powers of direction to ensure developments are completed, or possibly removing the permissions with no chance of reapplication by that developer or associated developers of that particular land. If the houses are deemed necessary in certain
	areas—in my patch, I must say, I have strong reservations about that or total opposition to it—I cannot do better than quote the former housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who, during Committee stage of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, said:
	“We want homes built. We want them built now”.––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2012; c. 267.]
	Let us give local authorities the power they need to ensure land banking and uncertainty is gone and homes and infrastructure improvements are made, and made on time.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Nigel Evans, Bob Stewart, Martin Vickers, John Mann, Austin Mitchell, Philip Davies, Chris Heaton-Harris, Crispin Blunt, Mr Brooks Newmark, Steve Rotheram, Mr John Leech and John Pugh present the Bill.
	Mr Nigel Evans accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 135).

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Second Reading

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in last week’s autumn statement an important and comprehensive reform to stamp duty land tax—SDLT—on residential property. Many Members made their views known on the SDLT changes in last week’s debate on the provisional collection of taxes motion. Today is an opportunity for others to raise their voices, although looking around the Chamber, it appears possible that the House’s appetite for debating this matter was sated last week.
	With effect from 4 December, the structure, rates and thresholds of stamp duty land tax have changed, and stamp duty has moved from a slab to a slice arrangement.

Alok Sharma: Of course I, like many colleagues, welcome the measure. My constituents are some of the most aspirational people in the country, and they think that this is a great move by the Government. What assessment has my hon. Friend, or perhaps the Office for Budget Responsibility, made of likely increases in the volume of property transactions as a result of this change to stamp duty?

David Gauke: This is likely to have an impact, with more transactions for properties on which the stamp duty bill has fallen—some 98% or so—and slightly fewer transactions when a larger stamp duty bill will apply. Although there will be an element of behavioural change as a consequence of the measure, property transaction numbers and house prices will be affected by a whole range of factors, so it can be difficult to ascribe any particular changes to one particular reason. However, it is likely that there will be more transactions, and that has certain advantages, such as for labour market mobility, and if it means that people are living in the homes that they want to live in as opposed to feeling trapped in their property to a certain extent. I think that the measure will have a beneficial impact on the housing market.
	Each new SDLT rate is now payable only on the portion of the property value that falls within each band. That is in contrast to the old system, under which tax was due at one rate for the entire property value. Moving from a slab to a slice arrangement is right in terms of fairness and economic efficiency. The new arrangement will cut SDLT for 98% of people who pay the tax, and no one who is buying a home worth up to £937,500 will pay more.
	This Government believe in aspiration. The aspiration to own our own house is one of the elements of human nature. It is something that, for generations, has been totemic for people in this country. This is a Government who will help people to achieve that ambition, and do so in a fair and equitable way.
	The previous stamp duty system was flawed. It had been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, industry and think-tanks. It was
	“one of the worst designed and most damaging of all taxes”,
	according to the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and “unfair” according to the Building Societies Association. According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, it did not
	“work as it stands and creates large distortions”.
	The problem with the previous system was simple. The slab approach created an enormous hike in taxes at certain thresholds. If someone paid £250,000 for a house, they would pay £2,500 in stamp duty. If they paid £250,001, however, they would pay £7,500—three times as much. In reality, of course, nobody did; they would have been crazy to. What happened was that there were dead zones—in this case a little above £250,000—in which almost no transactions actually took place.
	To return to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), this change is likely to result in a substantial increase in the number of transactions in those dead zones because of the ending of the bunching effect, which should help us to have a more efficient market. Let me again give an example that I cited in last week’s debate: in 2013-14, there were over 30 times as many sales between £245,000 and £250,000 as there were between £250,000 and £255,000. Given that the average UK house price is around £275,000, this was a big distortion affecting a significant number of properties.
	What also happened was that people owning properties a little under the threshold were reluctant to improve them for fear that that would be money thrown away if they came to put the property on the market. Also, people wishing to move up the property ladder as their families grew, but who found themselves on the wrong side of the step upwards, had to find a significant—and arbitrarily imposed—lump sum precisely at a time when there are hundreds of other one-off expenses to worry about. We have got rid of the inefficient and distortive old system, and replaced it with a fairer new system that cuts SDLT for 98% of people who pay it.
	Under the new structure, no buyer purchasing a property will pay anything at all up to the first £125,000. Buyers will be charged 2% for the portion from £125,000 to £250,000, and 3% for the portion from £250,000 to £925,000. Those individuals buying a house worth more than £925,000 will be charged 10% for the portion of the price between £925,000 and £1.5 million, and buyers will pay 12% tax for any portion of the price above the £1.5 million threshold.
	I stress that the tax will be paid once, and once only, at the point when the purchaser has the cash to do so. Once it has been paid, that is it, because we do not believe in introducing a system that would require homes to be revalued every year, or in imposing a large liability on people who may be asset-rich but cash-poor.

Ian Swales: I welcome the rate profile that my hon. Friend has put into the Bill. Does he agree that the measure is another example of this Government increasing taxes for the wealthy and making those with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden?

David Gauke: It is an example of that. In yesterday’s Treasury questions, in the context of the reduction of the 50p rate of tax to 45p, I pointed out that the
	proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% has been higher—and is projected to be higher—in the years since that cut than it was when the 50p rate was in place. There is a similar point to be made here. For properties, we estimate that the top 1% will be paying just under 40% of all stamp duty yields, whereas in 2010, under the old system, the top 1% were paying only 19% of all yields. Stamp duty has become more progressive as a consequence of our changes.

Jim Cunningham: How does that affect the shrinking tax base? This is a genuine question, by the way. The tax base seems to be shrinking at the moment, so will this change have an impact on the tax base, or will it be neutral?

David Gauke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that there has been a deliberate shrinkage of the tax base, in that we have taken 3.4 million people out of income tax. Perhaps that was not what he meant, but I am happy to draw the House’s attention to that policy none the less. The Government have, on a number of occasions, made the tax system more progressive. At a time when the public finances are in a difficult position and we need to consolidate them, we have ensured that the wealthiest in society bear a significant burden, and this measure is an example of that. We have made stamp duty land tax more progressive by reducing the burden on ordinary households and collecting more tax from the top end, where there has been a significant appreciation in values in recent years.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend talked about the yearly property tax that others have proposed, but irrespective of whether such a tax were introduced, is it not the case that it would not help those who want to buy their own house? Does he agree that the Government are introducing aspiration into home buying, which is something that we should all be encouraging?

David Gauke: Indeed; that is right. These measures will be helpful for those who want to get into the housing market and who often face significant challenges in putting together a deposit and meeting the transactional costs involved. I believe that it will be helpful that we have been able to reduce the transactional costs. I return to the point I made a few moments ago: this measure will help households up and down the country and we, as a Government, believe in aspiration.
	Let me stress that in every city, town and county in the United Kingdom, a large majority of people will benefit from the new system. No buyer of a property under £937,000 will pay more tax than under the previous system, and there will be a tax cut for 98% of home buyers who currently pay SDLT. In London, 91% of home buyers who pay SDLT will see their tax bill cut. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, over 99% of those paying SDLT will see the rewards in their pockets. A buyer of the average Help to Buy home priced at £185,000 will be £650 better off as a result of these reforms.
	The reforms came into force at midnight on 4 December to avoid creating undue distortions in the market, meaning that a stand-alone Bill was necessary. The Bill was introduced in Parliament on 4 December, following a provisional collection of taxes motion at the end of the
	autumn statement. If a person had exchanged contracts before 4 December but completes on or after that date, our transitional arrangements mean that they can choose whether to use the old or the new rates and structure. We have provided a calculator on the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs website so that people can work out how much tax they would be paying, and I am happy to confirm that it has been used more than 880,000 times since it was put in place on Wednesday.
	It is a bit of a standing joke that the UK is a country obsessed with house prices, but for most of us, buying a home involves the biggest amount of money we will ever spend. Stamp duty land tax is an important source of Government revenue. It raised £6.5 billion in 2013-14 to pay for the essential services that the Government provide and support. However, it is only reasonable that the tax should be imposed fairly and equitably. As a result of difficult decisions that we have taken elsewhere, we are now able to forgo £800 million of revenue to introduce these changes.
	The changes have been warmly welcomed. They are
	“great news for those buying a home or considering a move”,
	according to Nationwide. They are particularly good for
	“first time buyers and second steppers”,
	according to Savills, and
	“a shot in the arm for families and growing firms”,
	according to the CBI. My particular favourite came from a Mr Tom Whipple—a science correspondent for The Times—on Twitter, who wrote:
	“We are moving home next week. Osborne just saved us £400. I’m calling our new fridge freezer George.”
	That is how to become a household name in politics!
	On a more serious note, I would like to touch on how the change affects Scotland. From 1 April 2015, the land and buildings transactions tax—LBTT—will replace stamp duty land tax in Scotland. Up until that point, these reforms will apply to all residential property transactions in the UK, including Scotland. This will ensure that home buyers in Scotland do not miss out on a potential tax cut before the LBTT comes into operation.
	I am aware that there are some in the UK who will be unaffected by this change. As housing has become less affordable, the rate of home ownership has fallen from its 2003 peak of 70% to around 65%. Many are wondering whether they will ever get on to the housing ladder. Our reforms to SDLT will assist those households by reducing the amount of cash needed at the point of purchase. It should be stressed that SDLT is part of a much wider set of reforms designed to get Britain building, to increase radically the supply of housing units, and to release some of the pressure on our housing market.

Alok Sharma: The Minister cites the schemes that the Government have implemented to help people to buy their own homes. Will he tell us how many people have benefited from the Help to Buy scheme? Will not these changes give a further boost to the scheme?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, I am about to mention some of the measures that we have taken in respect of helping the housing market, including Help to Buy.
	We are investing billions of public money to provide affordable new homes, including £4.5 billion during this spending review period to provide 170,000 new units, and a further £3.3 billion to deliver 165,000 more units over three years from 2015. As announced in the autumn statement, there will be another £1.9 billion between 2018 and 2020 to continue delivering homes at the same rate. We are also reforming planning laws. The autumn statement package contains commitments on releasing land with capacity for up to 150,000 homes and new measures to support up to 133,000 homes.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

David Gauke: I should like to make some progress, as I want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West.
	In September, we introduced a new £400 million rent to buy programme, boosting the building of new rental homes to help people to upgrade into home ownership. The programme allows people to rent affordably and to save for a deposit, and then to buy that home or another one. To answer my hon. Friend’s question, more than 66,000 households have benefitted from the Help to Buy equity loan and mortgage guarantee schemes, four fifths of whom were first-time buyers.

Jim Cunningham: Obviously we want people to be able to own their homes, but there is another facet to this: social housing, either through local authorities or housing associations. What element of the money that the Government are putting into these schemes is going to that end of the market? The drop from 70% to 65% that the Minister mentioned earlier probably relates to people going into the rental market.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that almost 217,000 affordable homes have been delivered since April 2010. Between 2011 and 2015, some £19.5 billion of public and private investment is going into affordable homes, and we are on track for the highest rate of affordable house building in at least two decades. The Government are delivering on all aspects of how we ensure that we give people the opportunity to have decent housing. These SDLT reforms will give another boost to people wishing to fulfil their aspirations to own the place they live in.

Jake Berry: I apologise to the House for not being here for the start of the debate. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that when the previous Government introduced a new SDLT regime, there were several avoidance schemes, most of which involving sub-selling at below the market value. I applaud the Bill and look forward to its passage through the House. Will he confirm that the anti-avoidance measures under the previous regime will be read over to this Bill to stop the abuse of the tax system?

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because the Government have addressed this issue fully during this Parliament. A few years ago, SDLT was starting to develop a reputation as a tax that was easily abused—he mentioned one means by which that was done—but this Government have introduced several measures to deal with that. We have seen a substantial decline in the marketing of SDLT avoidance
	schemes, and the introduction of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings has been successful in discouraging avoidance. He is right to highlight the issue, but we are making changes in the context of a SDLT that is perhaps less leaky than when we came into office a few years ago. That enables us to make our changes, which benefit properties in a way that is, none the less, affordable for the Exchequer. As the Chancellor made clear last week, the policy will deliver a tax bill cut for 98% of people who pay SDLT, and the previous economic distortions in the system have been removed, which benefits the housing market generally.

John Stevenson: First, I apologise for being late, as I was serving on a Delegated Legislation Committee. I welcome the reforms for the residential market, but do the Government have any intention to introduce similar provisions for the commercial market?

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which we debated briefly last week. Particular issues with the residential market meant that we needed to address that quickly, and some of the pressures to reform the system applied particularly to the residential market. Clearly, any Government will want to keep this matter under review, so I would not want to rule out looking at the commercial market. However, the imperative was to press on for the residential market, and no doubt commercial property and SDLT is a matter to which the Government will wish to return in the future. I know that he welcomes these reforms, and I should point out that more than 99% of transactions in his constituency will benefit from our changes.

Jake Berry: What will be the SDLT position when there is a mixture of residential and commercial property? How will a shop with a flat above it, for example, be treated under the new SDLT regime?

David Gauke: The residential property would be considered under the new residential regime, and an evaluation would be needed to distinguish between the commercial and the residential premises.
	This reform will improve the fairness and efficiency of the tax system. It will make a real, tangible, positive difference to the lives of people up and down the country, and I hope that hon. Members will think fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this Bill—I am only sorry he was not breathless with excitement today as he was last week when we first debated the stamp duty changes. He is, however, right not to spoil us with a repeat performance, and I was amused to see that we all arrived super-early for this afternoon’s debate.
	I wish to indicate, as I did at the outset of last week’s debate, that we support these measures, and will be supporting the Bill on Second Reading and during its remaining stages. The Minister mentioned the procedural mechanism adopted to give effect to these changes: the Government moved a resolution under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, which was passed last
	week in order to give immediate effect to the stamp duty measures unveiled in the autumn statement. We debated that motion the day after the autumn statement and today we move on to the Bill’s Second Reading. The Government have proceeded with a stand-alone Bill rather than await the next Finance Bill in order to give immediate effect to the stamp duty changes and thereby prevent distortions within the housing market. We recognise the importance of that and support the mechanisms adopted to give effect to this measure.
	As the Minister said, stamp duty has been charged at a single rate on the whole purchase price of a property, with different rates for different value bands. When a property exceeds the threshold for a higher rate of duty, tax is charged at the higher rate on the whole value of the sale—this is the so-called “slab basis”—rather than on the part of the price above the threshold, which is the so-called “slice basis”. The tax has been charged on the slab basis for more than 40 years, and the slab basis design has caused much consternation and complaint, with regular calls for reform.
	In recent years, stamp duty has come under the spotlight much more because of the increasing burden the tax has placed on home buyers, especially first-time buyers, as a result of the huge increases in house prices. Between 1997 and 2005, house price inflation averaged more than 10% a year, and the proportion of property transactions attracting stamp duty rose from about half to more than three quarters during roughly the same period. In order to assist buyers, and first-time buyers in particular, we have seen a number of measures designed to alleviate some of the burden caused by stamp duty under its previous structure. They focused primarily on thresholds and stamp duty holidays: the threshold was doubled in 2005; it was temporarily increased by £50,000 for one year in 2008; and it was doubled again for first-time buyers for three years from March 2010.
	The burden of stamp duty, however, has continued to be significant, increasing by 30% between 2009-10 and 2013-14. The continued growth in the housing market has been the reason for the increasing stamp duty burden. In that context, today’s reform is sensible and has attracted support from across the House. SDLT rates will now only apply to the part of the property’s selling price that falls within each value band, and new rates and thresholds have been introduced.
	I have a number of questions on specific elements of the changes, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will deal with them when she responds to the debate. The changes came in with immediate effect on 4 December. The Government have explained that those who had exchanged contracts before 4 December but who were completing on or after that date will be able to choose whether the old or the new rules apply. Will the Minister update us on how many people she anticipates will opt for one or other of those options, and what impact the changes have had on property transactions in the period immediately following the autumn statement?
	The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made it clear both last week and this afternoon how Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been giving advice on the implications of this reform. I think he said that the calculator on the Government website had been used 500,000 times last week. That figure has now gone up to 880,000. He also told us that the HMRC call centre was manned until midnight on 3 December when the changes
	took effect, and that HMRC specialists responded to 250 inquiries by telephone, and all but 3% of them were resolved immediately. Will the Minister update us on whether the remaining handful of inquiries have been followed up, and on what points were members of the public or their advisers seeking clarification? It would be helpful for the House to understand how the public are responding to these changes.
	I also wish to press the Minister on the revenue implications of the measures. It is estimated that, in 2014-15, the reform will cost £395 million, which rises to around £760 million in 2015-16. That is a significant amount of money at a time when the public finances remain challenging to say the least. How certain is the Minister that the other measures in the autumn statement, which the Government say will raise enough revenue to offset the cost of this measure, will in fact raise the amounts that they hope? Today, the Government have published the draft Bill for the new diverted profits tax, which they say will raise £1.3 billion over the scorecard period. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that those numbers are uncertain, and, in its fiscal outlook, gives a new rating system to reflect the degrees of uncertainty over some of the figures in the autumn statement. For the diverted profits tax and the SDLT numbers, for example, it gives a medium to high uncertainty rating. What impact will that have, and how confident is the Minister that we will not have future debates on the failure of some of these measures to live up to the Government’s claims?
	We have just heard how these changes will apply only to residential properties. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have queried why the changes have not been extended to cover commercial property, too. When I raised that point last week, the Minister said that the Government were not persuaded of the case, but it does seem odd to be running two different systems for the same tax, especially when the Government have acknowledged, as we all have, that the slab structure has a very distorting effect.
	The Government say that the slab stamp duty system had a negative impact on labour mobility. Why do they think that the same will not happen in relation to business mobility? Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary can give us some more detail on the Government’s thinking in that regard. Has any assessment been done on the impact of retaining the slab system for commercial property, and on how competitive a place this country is in which to do business? Are there any plans to look at this matter again ahead of the general election?
	Last week, the Minister said that the changes will have a positive effect on labour mobility and productivity, but the OBR says that the effect will be limited and highly uncertain, because while
	“higher rates of stamp duty reduce households’ propensity to move, the adverse effect was confined to short-distance and non-job related moves - an impact less likely to have direct implications for GDP.”
	Why do Ministers think slightly differently on the matter of labour mobility?
	As the Minister has explained, the measures apply to Scotland only until April next year, as responsibility for this tax was devolved to the Scottish Government in the Scotland Act 2012. The Scottish Government have announced details of their land and buildings transaction tax, which also has a slice structure. The Scottish LBTT
	will apply to both residential and commercial properties. I want to press the Minister on what impact that will have on the rest of the UK when it comes to the question of where businesses choose to buy commercial properties. Is there a risk that England may be disadvantaged? The more favourable regime in Scotland, with the slice structure for commercial property, might mean that businesses avoid buying commercial property in England where the less favourable slab structure applies. What impact will that differential treatment of commercial property have on business mobility? Although devolution is an important process, as it puts decision making closer to the people whom it affects, we all want to avoid unhealthy tax competition among the nations of the UK. Has any assessment been carried out to consider the implications of such competition?
	Of course none of the measures that we are debating today deals with the main cause of the biggest housing crisis for a generation, which is the lack of supply. Last week, I asked the Minister about how the stamp duty changes will impact on house prices. He said that there would be some impact, but that house prices are affected by a number of factors. I wish to press him and the Exchequer Secretary on the assumptions that the Government have made, and what outcome they would like to see when it comes to the interaction between the stamp duty changes and house prices. It looks like we are seeing a 1.4% increase in prices against a 1% reduction in stamp duty at the lower end, and it seems also that the tax take from stamp duty will rely on a 5% annual increase in property prices.
	The OBR says that house prices will continue to rise faster than incomes, which will risk pushing home ownership further out of reach for many more people. Have the Government assessed how many more people might be priced out of the property market?
	Measures to alleviate the burden on buyers are welcome, but we are experiencing the worst housing crisis for a generation and need much more action on housing supply if we are to get our housing market into better shape and help more young people and families to realise their dream of home ownership. I note the comments that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made in his opening speech, but the truth is that we need to build many more homes than this Government have managed in their term of office. At the moment, the Government are primarily focusing on the demand side of the housing equation, whereas we, on the Opposition Benches, think that they should have taken the opportunity to balance things up on the supply side, too.
	However, the measures before us today are reasonable and sensible. We support them, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.

Anne Main: I am delighted with the changes to stamp duty; I have been campaigning for them for a significant period of time. It is worth observing the old adage that success has many parents, but failure is an orphan, as it could be relevant to the campaign. When I was claiming a bit of a victory on this, having campaigned for it for so long, I was amazed to read that the Liberal Democrats had campaigned equally long for the change. Surprisingly, though, not a single Liberal Democrat turned up to the Backbench
	Business debate that I secured on the matter on 4 September. Perhaps lobbying is more in the mind than in the actuality.
	Let us not be bitter today, as I welcome the proposals. It was good to follow the shadow Minister, as she was raising some of the concerns that I have about a differential tax system. It will have to be addressed, because altering the designation of a property from commercial to residential, or residential to commercial, could provide a way of avoiding tax, as one situation may be seen as more beneficial than the other. To have a dual system running may well cause problems.
	I also worry that in areas where it is hard to keep small commercial operations going, the temptation to flip a property’s designation to residential, rather than trying to maintain it as a commercial property, will be even higher if there is also a tax advantage in doing so. I urge the Government to keep that under review, because if the slab system was hated—and it was—it was hated not just for its effect on homes.

John Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend therefore suggest that commercial and residential properties should have the same rates and thresholds?

Anne Main: I do suggest that. I am sure that budgetary constraint is the reason that has not been done, but I am concerned that that slice system, which will not apply in Scotland and will apply in England only to residential properties, could result in complicated reasons why commercial properties might end up being vehicles for tax avoidance, which would not be good. The slab system was roundly denounced by all parties and all commercial commentators, so I think that is something we should look at.
	I welcome the moves to get more young people on the property ladder. In St Albans, the Help to Buy scheme was not utilised at all because, as has been widely observed, if people cannot save up a deposit in a very expensive area, how on earth can they save for the tax to be paid to the Chancellor? The reform is therefore very helpful in that regard. However, we must ensure that we do not allow the properties that we are trying to help—those targeted by lower and middle-income buyers—to be dragged further into the higher levels. In 2003 only 10% of properties were caught by the 3% rate, but just prior to these reforms the figure had risen to 25%. It is important that the Government do not sit back and wait for too long following these reforms, because too many of the families that they have sought to help will be dragged into the higher rates.
	According to Savills, which I was talking to today, people in St Albans have already benefited. The amount paid under the previous regime was, on average, £17,273 per transaction. Under the new regime it will be £16,020. That is still very high, but of course that is an average, and the average house price in St Albans is over £500,000, but there are still many houses that fall well below those transaction levels. My constituents are hugely grateful that they can at least start trying to get on to the property ladder without having to pay such an enormous burden to the Treasury. That is welcome.
	There are two points that I would like some clarity on. Why have we decided to keep a dual system going when the previous regime was agreed to be so demonstrably
	flawed? It might be unaffordable, but I think that is almost indefensible. If it is a bad scheme, it is a bad scheme. I do not want business owners and people who wish to aspire to own their own business feeling that they are labouring under a bad scheme that has been roundly denounced, and quite rightly so, by all parties in the House.

Ian Swales: I will not detain the House for long but I want to register the Liberal Democrats’ support for these proposals. They are important measures that relate to the liquidity of the housing market. The point at which people pay a lot of money is generally a good point at which to raise taxes, but if they are levied in a way that causes the market to be less liquid, that is a bad thing.
	I said in my speech last week that slab systems in general need to be looked at, on both the tax and benefits side, because by definition they produce cliff edges and cause sub-optimal behaviour at the boundaries. For that very reason I will join the chorus of people who have said that it is also time to look at the commercial SDLT arrangements. I think that all slab systems should be reviewed, because we can be sure on the income side that tax is avoided near those boundaries, and on the benefits side people are encouraged or discouraged in their behaviour because of the cliff edges.
	I understand the need to introduce these measures quickly, and therefore why the Minister might not want to review all such systems with this kind of speed, but I urge him to initiate reviews to see what other changes might be needed on the commercial side and in any other slab systems. I think that the system proposed is very good. It is progressive. I take the point made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and ask the Minister what inflation arrangements he is considering for the boundaries of the new system. The fact that the budget document shows an increasing take from stamp duty rather suggests the fiscal drag that the hon. Lady fears. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to that point.
	As I said in an earlier intervention, this reform joins the long list of measures that the Government have introduced to increase taxes on those who can best afford it, such as the large increase in capital gains tax and in tax on pension contributions and, indeed, the fact that the top rate of income tax is now 5% higher than it was for the entire period of the previous Government, except for their very last day in office. I welcome the progressive nature of those changes. Very wealthy home buyers will be paying a lot more to the Treasury, which I welcome. The Minister talked about the percentage effects in various parts of the country. I can report that, to the best of my knowledge, the figure for those benefiting in Redcar is 100%, so I thank him for that. I believe that this change is an important matter of fairness, and my party will support it.

Priti Patel: It is a pleasure to respond to this efficient debate, and I welcome the consensus on it across the House. The measure has been debated over the past week, so it is not surprising that we have reached a conclusion quickly today. We have had an effective debate today. This is a
	landmark reform, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said. The Government announced it in the autumn statement. It is the most radical restructuring of stamp duty we have seen. It cuts stamp duty for 98% of people who pay it. It eliminates damaging distortions in the housing market, where someone buying a house for £250,001 pays three times as much tax as someone buying a house for just £1 less.

Anne Main: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether that is 98% of all transactions or 98% of all domestic transactions?

Priti Patel: The reform cuts stamp duty for 98% of people who pay it. That is the point I was making.
	The reform reduces the tax bill for first-time buyers. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary highlighted, this is about aspiration. Everything about the debate we have had is about supporting home owners, first-time buyers and the principle of aspiration.
	In a moment I will move on to the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). The Labour party made a number of points about how many people have benefited from some of the advice that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs provided last week on the transitional support. The Government do not have the current figures on how many home buyers have benefited from the transitional reviews. As with most cases where stamp duty is paid, we get the information only after a transaction has been fully completed. However, we expect that as many as 35,000 transactions will benefit from the transitional rules, which is a substantial number.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned stamp duty on commercial properties. They will not be surprised to hear that the Government rightly keep all taxes under review. We have taken swift action on the residential front, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has highlighted, and that was debated in the House last week. That swift action has obviously removed the distortions that acted as a break on aspiration and made it harder for first-time home owners.
	The market for commercial property is different and, as I said, we will keep all taxes under review. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) asked about mixed-use buildings. Those are subject to the commercial rules, not the residential rules, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary highlighted. The Government keep all taxes under review and will give consideration to mixed-use buildings ahead of future events as part of our normal review process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans touched on Government forecasts. Forecasts of house prices and stamp duty land tax revenues have been verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner on these issues and had a debate on the subject in the House not long ago. She referred to flipping between commercial and residential rates for avoidance purposes. We are clear that the reform is not an opportunity for avoidance.

Ian Swales: Can the Minister clarify the situation where buy-to-let residential property might be owned within a corporate envelope? Is that treated as a commercial business or does it still fall within the residential arrangements?

Priti Patel: Property in the buy-to-let framework would be treated as residential.

Jake Berry: I refer to the point about flipping between commercial and residential arrangements. My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the welcome reforms of this Government has given automatic planning permission for vacant commercial office buildings to become residential property. The substantive implementation of a change of use and planning permission between a commercial office building and a residential property would be minimal and could involve, for example, just bringing in desks and putting in more male and female lavatories. There is concern about avoidance, and where two systems exist, there is greater opportunity for avoidance by those who seek not to pay their tax. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box to keep this matter under review and ensure that as the Government take the Bill through the House, they will review it and seek opportunities to tighten up the law to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about keeping the arrangements under review. We want to ensure that people pay not just their fair share, but the right amount. The Government keep all taxes under review.

Greg Knight: Clause 2 refers to the purchaser being able to elect that the new calculations do not apply, and the explanatory notes that my hon. Friend has helpfully supplied state:
	“An election must be made in a land transaction return . . . and must meet any requirements specified by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”
	Will any terms so imposed be subject to ministerial scrutiny and approval?

Priti Patel: Absolutely. Ministers are involved in the process and will be consulted. That is right and proper. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is about the transitional rules, which we touched on earlier.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) mentioned Scotland and the changes to stamp duty land tax, which has been devolved to Scotland. The Government will monitor how stamp duty land tax receipts change in the light of that. That is part of the usual policy-making process.

Cathy Jamieson: Was discussion with the Scottish Government held in advance of the announcement? Will there be additional discussions during the coming weeks and months to ensure that there are no adverse consequences?

Priti Patel: This is a commercially sensitive area so specific discussions were not held. I reiterate that as part of the usual policy-making process there will be ongoing reviews of how the system works between Scotland and England. Now that the change has been made, discussions will take place when necessary.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister refers to the normal policy-making process. However, given that the changes in Scotland are due to be introduced in April, there is a very short opportunity for discussion, particularly about any adverse impact that there might be on the market. Does the Minister have plans to meet her counterparts in Scotland for discussions?

Priti Patel: These are now devolved matters, as the hon. Lady knows. As part of not only the devolution process but future policy formation, I have no doubt that discussions will take place.

John Stevenson: I am grateful for the earlier clarification about the Government’s position on commercial property. Can the Minister clarify the position on agricultural property?

Priti Patel: Agricultural property would be treated in the same way as commercial property. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
	On housing supply and affordable housing—a point made today and last week from the Opposition Front Bench—all the work that the Government have put in place in relation to the stamp duty land tax measure has been about supporting aspirational home ownership and making home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. This Government support more home ownership, and stamp duty reform is part of that. We are investing billions of pounds to provide affordable homes including, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned, £4.5 billion during the spending review period to provide more than 170,000 new units, and a further £3.3 billion to deliver more than 165,000 more homes over three years from 2015. We have also speeded up reforms to planning. Housing starts in England are at their highest level since 2007, which we all welcome. In the autumn statement last week we announced a package to do even more, by introducing measures to support more than 133,000 new homes. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary touched on rent-to-buy and help-to-buy schemes.
	In conclusion, our long-term economic plan has supported home ownership through stamp duty land tax reform and increased supply through the measures that I have just outlined. Importantly, the economy is growing, the deficit is falling, and employment is at a record high. These are all economic measures that should be welcomed across the country. We are building a stronger, sustainable and healthier economy. The autumn statement set out a modest fiscal tightening and does not shy away from the challenges that remain.
	Against that backdrop, we believe that aspiration should be supported. For centuries it has spurred people on. The Bill backs those who aspire. I am proud to be part of a Government who stand by aspiration and advocate it. This Bill reforms a fundamentally flawed system and will help make the dream of owning a home a reality, while cutting the tax bill for the overwhelming majority of people affected by it. There is consensus on this, as we heard this afternoon, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
	(2) Notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in on Ways and Means Resolutions, proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day’s sitting.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, on the day on which proceedings in Committee are commenced, two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee.
	(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, on the day on which proceedings in Committee are commenced, three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee.
	(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, to any proceedings on consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any Message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

WALES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 31 March 2014 in the last Session of Parliament (Wales Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 30 April 2014 in that Session (Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Nos. 1 to 13, 17 and 14 to 16.
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

Wales Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Dawn Primarolo: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1 to 17. If the House agrees to any of them, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Welsh rates of income tax

Stephen Crabb: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 13 and 17.

Stephen Crabb: Taken together, these amendments remove the so-called lockstep mechanism from the income tax provisions. By removing that mechanism so that the Bill reflects the Silk commission’s recommendation in its part I report, the National Assembly for Wales will be able to set separate Welsh rates of income tax for each band. Subject to a referendum, all three income tax rates would be reduced by 10p, and the Assembly would decide a separate Welsh rate for each band. Those Welsh rates would be added to the reduced UK rates.
	The lockstep is probably second only to dual candidacy as the most debated aspect of the Bill; it has been debated at great length in both this House and the other place. I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that I have been prepared to listen to all the arguments and perspectives and, if necessary, to take a different approach on the lockstep. That is exactly what I have done. Before I go any further, I would like again to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for his hard work and perseverance as Secretary of State for Wales in guiding the Bill through its early stages.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point of counting the number of times my right hon. Friend used the word “accountability” in describing the Bill; I believe that he stopped at 15. Frankly, though, my right hon. Friend could have used it 15 times more because the Bill was, and is, all about accountability. By being made responsible for raising a proportion of the money that they spend, and allowing the people of Wales to judge them on how they spend it, the Assembly and the Welsh Government will become more accountable to the electorate.
	In removing the lockstep, we are removing what was widely seen to be a deterrent to the Welsh Government’s accepting the devolution of income tax in Wales. Given the other financial provisions in the Bill and the full devolution of business rates, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed last week, will be implemented as planned next April, the Assembly would become responsible for raising around a quarter of the money that it spends.
	Hon. Members will be aware that last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published a forecast of devolved tax revenues for Wales alongside the autumn statement.
	That showed that revenue from the 10p of income tax that would be devolved to Wales would net the Welsh Government almost £2 billion in 2014-15—about nine times as much as stamp duty land tax and landfill tax combined. The figures show, in black and white, that through the Bill we are providing the Assembly and the Welsh Government the tools to help grow the Welsh economy and take responsibility for raising a significant portion of the money that they spend. The removal of the lockstep makes it even easier for them to do that.
	I welcome the First Minister’s statement in the Senedd last week in which he confirmed for the first time that he would accept income tax devolution. That is indeed progress. But—and there is always a “but”—once again he hid behind the self-imposed “barrier” of funding. I have always said that the powers in the Bill should be as far-reaching and flexible as possible, to provide the Welsh Government with the tools to grow the Welsh economy. Where we have committed to removing obstacles, however, the First Minister continues to erect them. He seems intent on denying the people of Wales their rightful say on whether income tax powers should be devolved, rejecting the opportunity to make the Welsh Government more accountable to those who elect them and refusing to accept responsibility for raising more of the money that they spend.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State has outlined the advantages of the devolution of those additional powers. Does he accept that giving more tax-raising powers, and hence reducing other income from central Government, exposes the Welsh Government to greater fluctuations in revenue and makes the long-term planning of services much more difficult?

Stephen Crabb: Part of devolving any tax—income tax or any other fiscal power—is the creation of an incentive for the devolved Government. They get an extra tool and an incentive, which they never had before, to grow that portion of their own tax base.
	Crucially, the devolution of income tax in Wales will be done in line with what the Holtham commission proposed for Scotland: the indexed deduction mechanism. That would effectively shield the Welsh Government from UK-wide economic shocks but give them the incentive of holding on to the extra Welsh revenue that they were able to generate. That works both ways: if Welsh income tax grows at a slower pace than that of the rest of the UK generally, there will be a loss, but that is exactly what provides the incentive for the Welsh Government to seek to grow the tax base. The issue is about economic development.

Jonathan Edwards: My reading of the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, published last week, was that the Welsh devolved tax take is projected to increase by half a billion pounds over the next Parliament. If the powers are not fully adopted by the Welsh Government, what would be the increase in the Welsh block during that period?

Stephen Crabb: I cannot provide a specific analysis in line with the question, but I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point. There are distinct advantages, not only for the Welsh Government, but for businesses in Wales, which want the Welsh economy to grow through the devolution of these taxes.

Jonathan Evans: Let me be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recognition overnight as the Welsh politician of the year.
	Does this debate not highlight one of the difficulties with devolution? People only really want half of it—they want the powers, but do not want the responsibilities. There is a statistic showing that a minority of people in Wales recognise that health policy is decided in Cardiff. Does that not illustrate the importance of giving responsibility as well as devolving the powers themselves?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is exactly right and characteristically articulates his point better than anybody else in the House could. Devolution got stuck. The settlement meant that the Welsh Government were essentially a spending Department with no real responsibility for raising money—in fact, local authorities or parish councils probably had more ability to raise revenue than the Welsh Government. The Bill is all about letting Welsh devolution take the next step forward, which is about fiscal devolution, giving responsibility and enhancing accountability to create a more meaningful relationship between the Welsh Government and the people who elect Assembly Members and Welsh Ministers.

Owen Smith: The Secretary of State speaks of the incentives that these powers would give to the Welsh Government. Will he be clear, as his predecessor was, as to how they ought to deploy those incentives? His predecessor thought that they should cut taxes in Wales to lower rates than in England. Does he agree?

Stephen Crabb: It is entirely up to Welsh Ministers how they choose to use these tools. I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says, as I would expect him to be the last person to suggest that the Secretary of State should be directing how these powers are used. I am a Conservative, and, to my core, my aspiration is always to see lower taxes rather than higher taxes. That is a difference in values between Government and Opposition Members. We understand that lower taxes generally create the right circumstances for business growth and for growing wealth in an economy—and all Members, on both sides of the House, should be ambitious to see more of that in Wales.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept, though, that unless we have the correct formula for deciding what are national impacts and what are local impacts on the tax revenue raised, there is a great danger that Wales could suffer as a result of the fact that fluctuations in income over the economic cycle tend to be much greater in the regions of the United Kingdom than in the United Kingdom as a whole?

Stephen Crabb: I do not dismiss the risk that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but I think he exaggerates its impact on Wales. Alongside any perception of risk in relation to such fluctuations, there is a powerful opportunity for Wales to take greater control over wealth creation inside the nation of Wales. That is an exciting opportunity for the Welsh people, and it represents the next stage of devolution.
	This is all about accountability. The former US President Harry Truman famously had on his desk a card that said, “The buck stops here.” I want to see a Welsh Government who stand up proudly and say, “The buck stops here” rather than “The buck is passed there.” That is what this Bill is all about: it creates that enhanced accountability and enhanced responsibility. I repeat my challenge to the First Minister and the Welsh Government: as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent, take steps to call the referendum and do it as soon as possible. Let us seize the new tools and powers in this Bill with both hands and move forward.

Owen Smith: May I be the second Member of this House to congratulate the Secretary of State on becoming Welsh politician of the year? I think the whole House would agree that anybody who can move from describing devolution as “constitutional vandalism” to being its most ardent supporter on the Government Benches deserves to have his political footwork duly recognised.
	These amendments to the Wales Bill best exemplify the damascene conversion that the Secretary of State and his party have undergone on the devolution cause, because they relate to the devolution of income tax varying powers. Just as the Secretary of State used to denounce devolution and has now changed his mind, the Government have performed—he understated the extent of this—a handbrake U-turn on the lockstep.

Stephen Crabb: For clarification, the shadow Secretary of State has accurately reported a quote of mine that appeared in an article in 2007, but he should do full justice to the article by adding that in it I set out exactly the same case for fiscal devolution that I have set out today. I have been entirely consistent over a long period as to how fiscal devolution would enhance the devolution settlement for Wales.

Owen Smith: I am happy to agree that that is how the article went on, but it did indeed describe devolution as “constitutional vandalism”. I shall not forget that, and nor should the country of Wales, for which the right hon. Gentleman is now Secretary of State.
	The Government have undertaken a U-turn on this. Let me refresh the House’s memory. Just a few months ago, the Secretary of State’s party wholly opposed the removal of the lockstep. In fact, his Department and the Treasury produced a substantive Command Paper, Cmd 14, which said:
	“The Government is firm in its view that the income tax structure is a key mechanism to redistribute wealth across the whole of the UK, which is why the ‘progressivity’—
	a word I think they made up—
	“of this system is properly determined at the UK level.
	The inclusion of the lock-step is also consistent with the principle that fiscal devolution should not benefit one part of the UK to the detriment of another—this could occur if the Welsh Government is able to set a substantially lower rate for higher/additional taxpayers without needing to change the basic rate”.
	That is what the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting —that we set lower rates in Wales than in England.
	We do not demur from the sentiment expressed in the Command Paper, but nor do we greatly object to the Government changing their mind on this issue. That is partly because they are reflecting the views of all parties in the National Assembly—it is appropriate and good
	that the Secretary of State has listened to them on this —and partly in the light of the Smith commission findings, which have shifted the debate significantly by proposing 100% devolution of income tax to Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that there is now a case for going further than is proposed in the Bill. It seems unlikely to me that the people of Wales would find it acceptable to be asked in a referendum about having lesser tax varying powers than those on offer in Scotland.
	Many of us in the House now recognise that perhaps one of the mistakes of the previous Government was to allow asymmetry to develop between different parts of the UK in earlier rounds of devolution. That has driven pressure for greater change in Wales to reflect changes in other parts of the country. In fact, the case has now clearly been made for a constitutional convention to consider all the issues in the round and to try to derive a lasting settlement acceptable to all parts of the UK.
	The Government have not yet agreed to a constitutional convention, and in its absence we must still consider the Welsh Government’s rationale for taking up powers to raise taxes, if those powers were accepted at a referendum.

Jonathan Edwards: Labour’s policy is to have a constitutional convention. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the event that we have a Labour UK Government, there will be a constitutional convention, and if so, would it halt the Smith process and the proposed Bill for Scotland?

Owen Smith: No. I am saying that if there were a Labour Government, we would have a constitutional convention to look at the whole of the UK. Therefore, wherever we were in the Smith commission proposals, which will continue on their course, that would need to be fed into the convention. A constitutional convention would not need to slow down or stop further devolution to Scotland, but it would have to take cognisance of what was happening in Scotland.
	Whatever further changes are made in Wales should reflect what happens in Scotland, because the willingness to accept asymmetry has diminished in Wales and elsewhere. Many of us feel that such asymmetry inherently leads, over time, to instability in the existing settlement.
	In the absence of a convention, we must consider why the Government think that Wales should take up the new powers. I want to start not with Labour, but with the current Government. Why do they now feel that the Labour Welsh Government should have an unfettered ability to raise taxes or to lower them to levels below those in England? The Secretary of State has made a couple of soundbites or comments today to illustrate why he thinks we should do so—he talked repeatedly about accountability and responsibility—but I must say that none of them was quite as blunt and honest as the rationale he gave to the Institute of Welsh Affairs a few weeks ago. He said clearly that his objective in providing the tax varying powers was to
	“end the politics of the begging bowl in Wales”—
	[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, “Absolutely,” but I find that quite an offensive position for him to take. He should not describe Wales as, in effect, a supplicant, and nor should he suggest that we are a scrounger or a shirker asking for handouts. It is not for him to suggest that the cure for the
	“politics of the begging bowl”,
	as he injudiciously puts it, is to force the Welsh people to raise taxes within their own borders. I do not espouse such a dog-eat-dog, race-to-the-bottom version of Britain, and nor should he.

Alun Cairns: The phrase “begging bowl”, as used in this context, originated with former First Minister Rhodri Morgan. Does the shadow Secretary of State completely dissociate himself from that?

Owen Smith: It was deployed in an entirely different context. The implication of the Secretary of State’s pejorative use of the phrase was—I am paraphrasing, but this was broadly what he said in the rest of his speech —that the Welsh Government have not been responsible or accountable, but that they would become so for the first time if tax powers were afforded to them. I have never accepted that the Welsh Government are unaccountable —they are as accountable as any elected Government—and I certainly do not subscribe to the view that Wales has ever held out a begging bowl.

Stephen Crabb: I think that the shadow Secretary of State is getting slightly bogged down and has now resorted to what he calls “paraphrasing” the speech I made to the IWA, although he is actually misrepresenting it entirely. My strong and clear point is that we have had 15 years of devolution in which the dominant theme of Welsh politics has been discussing how much money handed down through the block grant can be spent in Wales. The Bill and the new shift in devolution are about changing the nature of the debate so that it is not just about how much money we have handed down from London, but about raising money within Wales, growing the economy in Wales and seeing Wales stand on its own two feet.

Owen Smith: The Secretary of State makes my point for me because I do not for a minute subscribe to the notion that Wales has money handed down to it from Westminster. That money reflects the taxes paid by Welsh people, and more importantly, in a Union that is meant to be about our ability to share resources, pool risk and redistribute from wealthier to less wealthy parts, it reflects the morality and values of our country. Unfortunately, that morality and that set of values are being undermined by the Secretary of State’s description of the Union as one in which one part is a supplicant and another is handing down money.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be wary of the politics of the hospital pass in Wales? I am always suspicious of Tories bearing gifts, to mix my metaphors, and I do not trust the Conservative party to defend the interests of my constituents.

Owen Smith: Nor do I and, more importantly, nor do the people of Wales—that is why they do not elect Tories in Wales. The very least we owe the Welsh people is that we consider extremely carefully the likely impact of these radical changes to such a cornerstone of the redistributive Union as taxation. They will have an impact on the potential prosperity and well-being of the Welsh people, which is why, although Labour will not oppose the Lords amendments, as we have not opposed the Bill at
	other stages, we will continue to be clear that we want far more explanation from the Government about how and why they think the powers in question might be deployed in Wales, and what the benefits will be for the Welsh people.

Sammy Wilson: In light of the language about money given to the devolved Administrations being “handed down”, rather than the result of tax revenues, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the redistributive nature of some fiscal policy, does he accept that the danger of the devolution of income tax is that it is an underhand attempt to ensure that less money goes to the devolved Administrations, who will then be forced to raise money through higher taxation in their own jurisdictions?

Owen Smith: In a nutshell, the hon. Gentleman, who is expert in this matter, having been the Finance Minister for his own devolved Administration, explains why we are so concerned about the change. We are worried that the Tories are eager to legislate in haste to foist on the Welsh people the power to raise taxes in Wales.
	Our concerns are not just obstacles that the First Minister has placed in the way of the change, as the Secretary of State suggested. They are reasoned questions about the nature of the powers that might be deployed and what their impact will be. We have been clear and consistent in saying that the Government need to meet three tests. It is not really for the Opposition to meet them, because we cannot. It is for the Government proposing the changes to meet them, but it is disappointing that they have not done so. The first test, as the First Minister made clear, is on the baseline for funding and the Barnett formula. That will need to be addressed before the changes can ever be accepted in Wales, because we will not recommend the devolution of income tax varying powers to Wales until we know that we will not be locking in a degree of underfunding. Secondly, we want to be clear that even if the Barnett question is resolved, Wales will be better off.

Mark Williams: Although I share the Secretary of State’s impatience for the Assembly Government to be speedy in addressing the issue once the Bill is passed, does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the Government need to assess the funding shortfall? One way that could be done would be if the Government here and the Assembly Government again commissioned Gerald Holtham, for example, to assess the level of underfunding before we move forward, which I agree with the Secretary of State that we should.

Owen Smith: That is not a bad idea. We have recently heard Government statements about the reduction in the Barnett gap, and one can imagine that there would be such a reduction because public spending in England has been curtailed so dramatically under this Government, although we do not know that for certain. It is beholden on the Treasury to provide evidence of the current gap, and it would be sensible for it to consider making the process independent, not least because I do not think that we would fully trust what it might produce on its own.

Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman should be a bit cautious in his dismissal of the Conservative party, given this week’s opinion polls. His argument is the complete antithesis of the position adopted by the Labour party in Scotland—late in the day, it must be said—which is to agree to the devolution of all tax raising powers to Scotland. Against that background, how is his argument in any way consistent with the position adopted north of the border?

Owen Smith: To paraphrase the infamous, notorious entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is not a question of “For Wales, see England”, “For Scotland, see Wales”, or “For Wales, see Scotland”. We have different countries with different demographics, histories and relative tax takes, and on behalf of the Welsh people, we should sensibly take a position that reflects their best interest, rather than talking an ideological perspective across the board. On the prospects of the Tory party in Wales, I would be a little more hopeful that it might do well were it not for those such as the hon. Gentleman not fighting their seats at the next election. We can read into that what we will.

Jonathan Evans: It is the same as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain)

Owen Smith: Indeed, but I do not suggest for a minute that there is any prospect of my right hon. Friend being replaced by a Tory. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. [Interruption.] It will be a cold day in hell before Neath turns Tory, and ditto Pontypridd.
	Let me return to my point about whether Wales will be better off with these tax powers. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we can look to last week’s autumn statement to demonstrate that Welsh tax receipts are now £2 billion less than what was planned by the Chancellor in 2010. That is our proportion of the £66 billion shortfall in tax receipts that is a result of our underperforming economy under this Conservative Government. Had these measures applied in 2010, they would have devolved to Wales about £1 billion of that shortfall. That decline makes a mockery of the notion that such powers make the Welsh Government more accountable, because a poor performance across the board by the UK economy would not have been down to the actions of the Welsh Government. That performance would have been wholly down to a Tory Government in Westminster, and there is little that a smaller economy and country such as Wales could have done to mitigate that effect.
	The other thing that those numbers illustrate—again, the hon. Member for East Antrim effectively made this point—concerns the volatility of tax receipts across the UK. That volatility has led to a £66 billion shortfall, and traditionally there are greater fluctuations in peripheral and regional parts of the UK economy than at the centre, and especially in London and the south-east. It difficult to imagine how a country such as Wales with a small economy could manage the risk associated with that greater volatility. That shows some of the benefit of our being part of a wider Union, and it makes clear the dangers and risks associated with disaggregating that Union.

Jonathan Edwards: I watched with great interest the hon. Gentleman’s prophecy of doom on “Sunday Politics”. I have also read the OBR report and looked at all the tables on the Welsh devolved figures, and they do not reflect his claims about a £1 billion loss. Indeed, the only table on this issue in the report suggests that the Welsh devolved tax base will increase over the next five years by £500 million. The shortfall that he mentions might be as a result of the raising of income tax personal allowances that has been announced by the UK Government, but the Silk commission made it clear that the indexed deduction method for the partial tax raising arrangement in the Bill means that that would not come into effect. Is not the hon. Gentleman guilty of scaremongering? Project fear is alive and well in Wales once again.

Owen Smith: No, it is project reasoned analysis of the numbers, and that project shows clearly a £66 billion shortfall over the past five years and a projected further shortfall across the UK over the next five years. We will see a worse performance in terms of corporate and income tax receipts across the UK as a result of the low- wage, deeply insecure, second-rate economy that the Tory Government are building. Wales has been particularly ill served by what has happened because of the additional fragilities of our economy due to our industrial heritage and the preponderance of low-wage jobs in Wales.
	The reality is that—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he should think about this. He said earlier that the indexed method cited in Holtham means that Wales would effectively be incentivised to grow its tax base at a faster rate than England’s to enjoy uplifts under these powers. The truth is that over the past five years the Welsh tax base has declined at a faster rate than that of England, as the figure is 4.8% in Wales whereas the UK average is 4.2%. That means that Wales would have been worse off under the indexation had the provisions applied in the last five years, which is a further illustration of the need for the Government to undertake some proper, detailed analysis to let the Welsh people know whether we would be better or worse off.

Ian Lucas: In support of that point, is my hon. Friend aware that in Wrexham median wages fell by 7.4% in the last year under this Government? What encouragement that does give for increasing the tax base?

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. We know that the Welsh economy has historic weaknesses because of the decline in heavy industry, and its distance from London and the powerhouse of the south-east. Those are well understood, but they are not reflected in the debate that we are having, which is largely politically motivated.
	Some in Wales argue that we do not need a referendum to decide this matter, but we think that the Welsh people should have a debate and ultimately take the decision on what would be a radical change. The debate cannot be driven by the Tory party’s desire to insulate itself against the charge that it has reduced Welsh budgets by 10%, which it has; or by the need to support the Tory objective of reducing public spending to levels we have not seen since the 1930s, as was manifest last week; or even by the wish to sustain a partisan argument of English votes for English laws. All three of those rationales feature as part of the Government’s motivation for this
	debate, and we are disappointed that they have not provided any real response to these questions throughout the passage of the Bill.
	It will now be for the Welsh Labour Government to consider what is best for the Welsh people. I have no doubt that they will do so using Welsh Labour values and thinking about the benefits for the Welsh people, as well as about how we deliver equality and improvements to the lot of working people across the UK.

Glyn Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the occasion of the Bill’s return from the House of Lords in much improved form, if I may say so. In general, I welcome the Bill although I am concerned about some elements. Perhaps it is a Welsh trait that we can never completely agree on things, and I want to touch on one issue where I am not in agreement.
	What I welcome in particular is the new reality of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition shaping the process and future of devolution and driving forward, leaving—if I may say so to the shadow Secretary of State—Labour languishing in its wake. He may describe that as a U-turn, but that is the reality today. I want to make just one important point, which is very much a personal view. I disagree with one specific aspect of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise my overall support: it is a very good and welcome Bill.
	I would like to put my point in context by painting some background to my personal journey in the devolution debate. I was not in favour of the form of devolution on offer in the referendum on 18 September 1997. It seemed to me to be creating a permanently unstable constitutional settlement. A settlement is the last thing it was. I attended the count in Llandrindod Wells leisure centre, watching the TV coverage as the decision of the voters of Wales came through and they decided in favour of establishing a national assembly for Wales. I drove home knowing that there was no going back. The people had spoken, albeit by a tiny margin of 0.6%. We were now facing an entirely new question: how would devolution work in practice? I concluded immediately that the new Welsh Assembly would eventually become a law-making, tax-raising Parliament based in Wales. That has influenced my thinking on the issue ever since. I did not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, and trying to refight the 1997 devolution referendum. I preferred to get ahead of the curve and identify where we were going to get to, and move towards that in a positive and smooth way. That was not a change of mind, but a recognition of a new reality.

Jonathan Evans: My hon. Friend, through his service in the Assembly, has been one of the individuals who has encapsulated the position adopted by the Conservative party. Although the party battled against establishing the Assembly in the first place, and although the margin was only 4,000 in a million, nobody could claim other than that my hon. Friend and the party in Wales have since not been dragged back to the previous debate, but have moved forward and sought to make a success of the devolution settlement.

Glyn Davies: Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the contribution from those on the Front Bench when we started today’s debate.
	The Government of Wales Act 2006, introduced by the Labour party, moved things forward quite a lot, as did the 2011 referendum in relation to tax-raising powers. The Wales Bill takes us further down the road to what I consider to be the inevitable conclusion, but not far enough for me on tax levying responsibility. I will be blunt about my view: it is a mistake that the Bill requires a referendum before devolving responsibility for levying part of income tax collection to the Welsh Government. That is properly an issue for a general election. The Welsh Government are not financially accountable to the people of Wales until they are responsible for levying a degree of income tax. It is also my personal view that financial accountability through responsibility for income tax is so fundamental to a proper, grown-up National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government that we should not devolve extra responsibility until this principle is accepted—no financial accountability, no new powers.
	The First Minister, and perhaps Labour Members here on the Opposition Benches, do not want financial accountability. How convenient it is to bask in the credit of every spend that the people of Wales approve of and blame the UK Government for every difficult decision needed to bring order to the United Kingdom’s finances. We see the First Minister in Wales scrabbling around for any reason he can come up with to avoid committing to a referendum. First, it was lockstep, which is removed by the Bill. Then it was the Barnett deficit, until it became clear that it is a rather smaller Barnett deficit than we thought. I hear now that air passenger duty might be another reason, and if that is resolved, there will be another one. The reality is that Welsh Labour in Cardiff is desperate to avoid financial accountability. It does not want to be properly financially accountable to the Welsh people.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and thinking about what the Labour spokesman said. When the Silk proposals were being discussed, the First Minister of Wales was adamant he did not want air passenger duty devolved, but suddenly he has woken up and is desperately keen on it. It depends what day of the week we are in.

Glyn Davies: I would be more encouraged if I thought the day of the week was the reason. I think it is a desperate attempt to find one more hurdle to prevent us from moving towards financial accountability.
	During the passage of the Bill, I accepted it would include a commitment to a referendum on devolution of income tax levying powers. It was a recommendation of the all-party Silk commission, and in 1997 there was a referendum on this issue in Scotland. In my view, however, the Silk commission was wrong, and weak in its recommendation on this point. Devolving income tax powers is not as big a change as is being made out, and it is entirely appropriate that it be decided at a general election; it does not need a referendum. If a Welsh Labour Government acted irresponsibility, which they might well do, they would quickly be turfed out of office. It is much easier to sit in blissful impotence, complaining.
	I would like to see manifesto commitments by my party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru to revisit this issue, perhaps in a Wales Bill early next Parliament
	and before the Assembly elections in 2016, and to devolve income tax. We should put an end to Labour’s easy ride in Wales and make the Welsh Government properly fiscally accountable to the Welsh people. Only then will devolution grow up and reach its inevitable, logical conclusion.

Jonathan Edwards: It is a pleasure to make a short contribution to this debate, primarily to welcome these Lords amendments, which mirror amendments that were tabled by Plaid Cymru when the Bill passed through the Commons and which conveniently the three Westminster parties voted against at the time—they say a week is a long time in politics, but we are only a few months down the line and there has been a complete change of position. In that regard, I congratulate the new Secretary of State on being far more progressive than his predecessor.

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman will remember that there were exceptions. I was pleased to support Plaid Cymru’s lockstep amendment. I would not profess to be Mystic Meg or a trailblazer, but people listened to the message put forward by him and others, and to their credit, the Government changed.

Jonathan Edwards: I stand corrected. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has voted with us several times and broken his party Whip.
	The lockstep, of course, was a handcuff measure that would have made the powers in the Bill unusable—the only plus side was the extra borrowing capacity it would have given to the Welsh Government—and removing it creates greater flexibility, which is obviously to be welcomed. When we were debating the Bill in the Commons, however, I warned the Government that events in Scotland would supersede it, and that has indeed been the case. The Union survived by a thread, and even then only following the famous vow promising home rule, devolution max or something as close to federalism as possible. In that regard, the Smith commission was extremely disappointing.
	Westminster has one chance left to save the Union, or the British state as it is currently constituted, but the Smith commission is playing into the hands of pro-independence campaigners in Scotland. It nowhere near delivers the powers promised in the vow, but it is far in advance of what the UK Government are offering to Wales in the Bill. The signature policy of the Smith commission is 100% income tax devolution and the ability of the Scottish Executive to set as many bands as they want at whatever level they want. Indeed, my party put forward such an amendment during proceedings on the Wales Bill in the spring.

Ian Lucas: If the Smith commission is not in accordance with the vow that was given, why did the Scottish National party agree to it?

Jonathan Edwards: The commission’s remit is not one of its own choosing, but the SNP decided to act in the best interests of the country and move the process forward. Making out that the Smith commission proposals are what were included in the vow is not right. It was essentially home rule or devolution max, and on any definition of devo max, it means the full devolution of all powers apart from defence, foreign affairs, the monarchy and military policy. That is not included in the Smith
	commission proposals, which were less significant than what was promised to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum.
	As I was saying, the Smith commission is vastly more progressive in its trajectory of travel, offering 100% of income tax in comparison with the Wales Bill offer of only a paltry income tax sharing arrangement—and even then, only following a referendum many years down the line.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if Wales has its own powers to set both a higher and a lower rate of tax and it chooses to reduce the higher rate so that a lot of millionaires move to Monmouthshire, the overall tax take to the United Kingdom would be dramatically reduced because those people would all evade tax by moving to Wales? Does he think that is a good thing to set in motion, and does he have any idea whether the Government have calculated the cost of that possibility?

Jonathan Edwards: I am interested in this line of tax harmony across the UK being put forward by the Labour party. In Wales, of course, we had at the last count 22 local authorities all setting different rates of council tax, and we are a key part of a single market across the European Union with its different members setting different tax rates. If Labour Members’ argument were to hold water, surely they would argue for tax harmonisation across the whole of local government in Wales and across all member states of the European Union. It does not make much sense to me.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Jonathan Edwards: I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	In conclusion, the general election is fast approaching, and I can assure this House and the people of Wales that Plaid Cymru will fight that election on the basis that we will not allow our country to be treated as a second-class nation by the Westminster establishment.

Geraint Davies: I come here with an open mind about these tax issues, but I must confess that I have major concerns because I fear that the incentive for the Government to devolve tax powers is not one of freeing the nation of Wales to make its own decisions, but one of distracting attention from the fact that Wales is grossly underfunded both in revenue under the Barnett formula by some £300 million and in capital receipts. If we had our fair share of HS2, for instance, we would have an extra £2 billion.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman and I are both Swansea city supporters and I am grateful that he has been kind enough to allow me to intervene.

Geraint Davies: I can see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing black and white.

Jonathan Edwards: This is my wedding suit, or rather the suit I had with my wedding suit. It has led to much comment. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have no idea what is being talked about here. We are not discussing Swansea football club and we are not discussing suits or weddings. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is supposed to be making an intervention on the tax-raising powers in the Wales Bill. Perhaps he could face me, so I could hear him; and, secondly, he could make sure that his intervention is in order.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saving me because my good friend was distracting me on the basis of some spurious points. Is it the position of the Labour party, should it form the next UK Government, that HS2 will be seen as an England-only project and not a UK-wide project, thus giving Wales its rightful consequentials of £2 billion, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned?

Geraint Davies: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr is now trying to tempt his friend—having claimed that his friend was tempting him—to go down a route that we are not discussing today. We are debating Lords amendments on the tax-raising powers in the Wales Bill. Geraint Davies now has the Floor.

Geraint Davies: Let me publicly assure Mrs Edwards that the wedding was not spurious. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on both his point and his suit. It is a very nice suit, in black and white.
	As I mentioned earlier, the differential rates pose a real problem. There is a presumption that Wales will not lower the higher rate, but a very small number of people in Wales earn more than £150,000 a year. They currently pay 45%, and will pay 50% under a new Labour Government. In theory, if a new Labour Government in Cardiff or Westminster—or any other Government, for that matter—reduced the top rate and a large number of people simply slipped across the border, they would be evading large amounts of tax. Obviously Wales would benefit, because more money would be coming in, but for the overall tax-paying community, the amount would go down, and that is of legitimate concern.
	I should like to hear from Ministers what evaluation the Office for Budget Responsibility has made, producing different forecasts with different scenarios. My guess is that it has made none, and that this legislation is being rushed through in the hurried aftermath of what happened in Scotland, so that Wales can be given something comparable to the quick settlement that was made following electoral concerns in Scotland as we move towards a general election. That is not the way in which to establish a new constitutional settlement and a settled financial regime. It is all very well the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) saying “You want harmony, we have difference, so it does not matter what happens.” Such changes and differences bring pressures that are not settled, and which will be replicated in the future.
	Air passenger duty has been mentioned. Other things being equal, if someone says “Can I set my own air passenger duty?”, the response might be “That’s brilliant: we can raise some money”. But what if Boris Johnson in London says “Hold on, there is a precedent here,
	I want the money for Heathrow, and I am going to lower air passenger duty”, which is what he has said about stamp duty? We are talking about major shifts in the financial powers across the Union, which will unsettle the Union itself. Obviously we want a devolved settlement that is stable rather than ever-changing, rather than the setting in motion—by means of a quickstep to avoid short-term political advantage—of a system that will unravel into chaos.
	I know that there seems to be consensus across the Floor of the House today. It is a case of “Don’t worry; we will have a referendum, and hopefully it will be all right on the night.” What I have just described will probably not happen in Wales, because what prospect is there of our suddenly having five UKIP Assembly Members and a regional list? Oh, there is such a prospect; well there we are. What prospect is there of a newly emerging rainbow alliance—perhaps a very unfortunate rainbow with not a crock of gold but a crock of something much more unpleasant at the bottom of it, which will generate a cynical, unfair tax proposition that will lead us back into the dark ages? That is possible. [Interruption.] Obviously there is agreement, as laughter leads the room.

Sammy Wilson: I am glad to learn that the hon. Gentleman has now joined the Unionists in his heart, but does he accept that once we start to disaggregate the fiscal arrangements for the United Kingdom, real constitutional issues become involved? The danger is that the more fiscal powers are devolved to regional administrations, the looser the Union will become. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is ridiculous. The debate is degenerating into some sort of Christmas party. Members are just shouting at each other. This is a proper debate on Lords amendments. Members who have been in the House for a long time know that heckling, or comments from a sedentary position, are not acceptable. Mr Davies, I should be really grateful if you would now focus on the points in the Bill, so that we can hear the rest of your comments, followed by the Secretary of State’s conclusion. I shall do my best to ensure that you are not interrupted, or tempted to answer questions that are not asked formally in the Chamber.

Geraint Davies: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The focus of this debate is the differential between the lower and the higher rates—how that moves up and down and squeezes in and out, and what the implications of it are. In terms of the last intervention, the implications are that if that gives rise to great differences between the two rates across the border—or, indeed, across the Scottish or Northern Ireland border—it will generate distortions, not just on the border itself, but in terms of investment decisions, where people choose to live and work, and social security arrangements—whether they are devolved or not. It will extend beyond personal taxation because corporations coming in will bear in mind what they think their workers are going to be paying. As has been mentioned, therefore, corporation tax is part of that broader conversation.
	The Government are looking to give corporation tax flexibility for Northern Ireland because Ireland has got it. We could then follow through and say that perhaps Scotland should have it or perhaps somewhere else, and we would end up again with a bidding war downwards where—as I have just mentioned for income tax—the overall corporation tax-take for the UK would go down. At a time when corporations are migrating based on research and development and access to Europe as opposed to corporation tax rates, maybe this is the wrong route to follow, when taken together with income tax.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Geraint Davies: Please do not draw me on to anything wide of the mark.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have no intention of drawing the hon. Gentleman wide of the mark. Experience shows that when corporation tax is lowered, it increases the take because of increased inward investment.

Geraint Davies: That is an interesting point, but it does intrinsically depend on the elasticity of demand. At a time when corporation tax is already the lowest in the G8, I suggest that inward investors are not looking to Britain to lower its corporation tax and making a marginal decision to invest. They are looking at the level of research and development and the prospects of being part of Europe. One issue for inward investors is the uncertainty of a referendum ending up with us as a sort of chip shop England floating out into obscurity with UKIP and the Tories.
	In my view, if we cut corporation tax again there will be a net reduction in corporation tax revenues. On the income tax issue, I have an open mind. I am just throwing forward some of the scenarios whereby we can lose out in England and in Wales and making a point, which I ask the Minister to respond to in his summing up. I want to know what analysis has been done of the potential downside to the Exchequer of Wales reducing the top rate of tax and people migrating to Monmouth? What are those numbers and what consideration has he made? My guess is that he has made no consideration, and if so we should not be hurtling ahead in this way.

Stephen Crabb: I will be very brief as there is another set of Lords amendments that we need to debate.
	We spent most of this debate not debating the specifics of the Lords amendments around the removal of the lockstep. Most of the time has been spent listening to the weight of arguments, largely from Labour Members, against fiscal devolution full-stop. So we end the parliamentary passage of the Wales Bill exactly where we started: with three parties in this Chamber recognising the potential benefits to Wales of devolving a portion of fiscal powers—we are not talking about a full step down the road of full fiscal devolution, but a strong step forward —and one party resolutely digging in, trying to pretend that there is some kind of plot or conspiracy; we have had all those words and that language used before.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Crabb: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was rightly recognised last year as the MP of the year.

Elfyn Llwyd: And I am intervening on a Member of even higher status.
	Is it not interesting that the excuse being put forward by those on the Labour Front Bench is that they need to sort out Barnett? For the last 20 years or so I have been arguing about the need to sort out Barnett when the Labour party denied that there was a problem.

Stephen Crabb: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We end the parliamentary passage of the Bill exactly as we began it, with Labour trying to place even more hurdles in the way of devolving a portion of income tax. You would have to be Colin Jackson to clear all the hurdles that the Opposition are trying to set up.

Ian Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Crabb: I will not, because there is another group of Lords amendments to discuss.
	I should like to finish by paying particular tribute to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). He set out some powerful arguments, and has done so from a position of real credibility, having been an Assembly Member. He has been ahead of the curve on many occasions in recognising the strategic direction that Welsh devolution needs to go in and the benefits that can be accrued to Wales by taking sensible, moderate and pragmatic steps forward. On that note, I shall bring my remarks to a close.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
	Lords amendments 2 to 13 and 17 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Proposal for referendum by Assembly

Alun Cairns: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 14.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 15 and 16.

Alun Cairns: These amendments provide that, when a resolution to hold a referendum on income tax powers is moved in the National Assembly for Wales, the Assembly must state as part of the resolution whether the voting age for that referendum is to be 16 or 18. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, a number of peers sought to extend the franchise in Wales to 16 and 17-year-olds. They highlighted the fact that young people in Scotland had been able to vote in the independence referendum, but young people in Wales would not be able to vote in a referendum on income tax powers. I pay tribute to the younger voters of Scotland who actively registered and voted in that referendum. I know that many people felt that the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds helped to reinvigorate the political process and the political parties, and I understand why the Bill has reignited the debate on these issues.

Chris Ruane: The Minister has mentioned the registration of young voters in Scotland. What was done there to get the registration rates so high was great. Is he aware that the registration rate for 18-year-olds in England and Wales is as low as 55%, so if this provision goes ahead, we will really have to work hard to get the registration rate up?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Bill contains measures to encourage the Assembly to engage with younger people and encourage them to register, should it wish to extend the franchise in the referendum on income tax-varying powers.

Chris Ruane: Has the Minister heard of an organisation called Bite the Ballot? It can go into sixth forms and register 100% of the students at a cost of only 25p per registration. Does he think that the Assembly—and, indeed, the UK Government—should be working closely with organisations such as Bite the Ballot to get the registration rate up?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not familiar with that organisation, so it would not be right for me to endorse its activities at this stage. Clearly, however, any activity that encourages people who are eligible to vote to do so is broadly positive, and I would encourage the Welsh Government, the Assembly and the UK Administration to engage with a range of organisations and bodies to support that aim further.

Jonathan Edwards: The Minister is right to say that the referendum in Scotland reinvigorated the political process there, but that is because it was on a definitive issue. The proposed referendum for Wales is on a very technical point—the partial income tax arrangement—and is it not a danger that that is hardly going to excite the masses? Does that indicate that if we are to have another referendum in Wales, it has to be on something meaningful which is going radically to alter the devolution settlement?

Alun Cairns: We spent the earlier part of this debate discussing Lords amendments relating to the referendum, and I believed that the hon. Gentleman, in his usual positive way, as well as Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, thought that the referendum on income tax varying powers was definitive. It gives a great opportunity for political parties to sell the great prospect that lower taxes could bring to Wales, and the resulting wealth-creating opportunities.

Jonathan Edwards: My point is that if we are to have a referendum, it needs to be on a point of principle, and the principle of fiscal devolution has been conceded already in the Wales Bill with the devolution of the minor taxes.

Alun Cairns: I am not sure where this is going, but I accept that the engagement of young people is exceptionally important. The purpose of this Lords amendment is to devolve the power for the referendum to the Welsh Assembly, and it can therefore make judgments accordingly.

Glyn Davies: I questioned the need for a referendum. Although we accept that it is part of the Bill, does the Minister think there may be a possibility at some future
	stage of getting to a position where we can proceed with this income tax raising power, despite Labour’s opposition, by including it in a general election manifesto and not having a referendum?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to him for his speech. The debate on devolution is moving quickly and the referendum in Scotland has changed the debate across the whole of the UK. It is up to each political party to make its judgment. It is almost certain that there will be a Wales Bill in the next Parliament, whoever is in government. There will be an opportunity for him to make the case at that stage, and for each political party to make the case leading up to the election and include an element relating to that in its manifesto.

Guto Bebb: On the amendment that allows the Assembly to decide on the franchise for the referendum on tax powers, does the Minister agree that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on the tax issue and then not allowing them to vote in a subsequent Assembly election would send a very odd message about trust in young people?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not agree with him on that specific point. The Wales Bill provides the opportunity for the Assembly to introduce a referendum on tax varying powers, to the degree that we have already considered. That will extend the franchise specifically in this area. It learns the lessons from Scotland and creates the opportunity for us to reinvigorate young people in this area. However, the debate on the franchise in general for other elections is very different; there is no general consensus on that across all parties in the House and it is a constitutional matter that will be ongoing. It is not part of this Bill, but I have no doubt that it will form part of future debates that many parties will want to have.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Further to the points made by the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), extending the suffrage down to 16 and 17-year-olds could indeed be part of a manifesto commitment. Such an approach might avoid the problem of the referendum being on a narrow issue to do with tax and of this measure being in one Wales Bill, and it would replicate the commitment made by the leader of the Labour party this week to do just that.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but that is a major constitutional change covering lots of other political areas and it is well beyond the scope of this Bill. I am seeking to address amendments that will allow the Assembly to make progress in this area, should it wish to do so. It is up to the Assembly to make its own decisions. This provision devolves the power for it to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. However, it is important to recognise that there is no consensus across parties on the issue of changing the franchise to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections in general.
	In the specific case of the income tax referendum, the Government have listened to those who have called on them to look afresh at the issue. When the Secretary of
	State took office, he said that he wanted to be pragmatic and to listen to the views of the people. Part of that pragmatism is recognising the impact that the Scotland referendum had on politics across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To assist the debate, may I use the example of a 96-year-old person whom I met on Sunday? He was receiving the Ushakov medal for his work on the Arctic convoys. At the age of 14, he enlisted with the merchant navy and spent six months training on HMS Warspite and then sailed up the Amazon nine months later. He was certainly ready to vote, and so were the students who met me in Parliament last week to discuss the importance of voting at the age of 16 and 17. Let us just bite the bullet and do it.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and to the two constituents in my own constituency who have recently received medals from the Russian Government. None the less, he makes a point that goes well beyond the scope of the Bill, and that will be part of an important debate in the future. He will be able to make his point again when the time comes.

Mark Williams: How are we to tell constituents that we are, on the one hand, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, but on the other, denying them the franchise to vote in general, local or Assembly elections? How would the Minister explain that inconsistency? I suspect that after this amendment, which I very much welcome, we will need some answers to that question.

Alun Cairns: I suggest that the age of majority is different for different processes across the United Kingdom. It is a major constitutional change to extend the franchise for all elections. The scope of this Bill is specific about extending powers to the Welsh Assembly, and it is for the Assembly to decide. Who knows, the Welsh Assembly may not decide to extend the franchise to younger voters. It is up to it to decide on a referendum for income tax varying powers in Wales. That is the answer that the hon. Gentleman might wish to give to his constituents. This measure is not about extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, but about granting the power and the opportunity for the Assembly to decide on that basis.

Geraint Davies: It is one thing to say that there is a strong case for people of 16 to have a vote as they have a general knowledge of politics in the round and can make an informed decision, but the argument we are trying to make is whether young voters who have never voted can suddenly grasp the technicalities of setting different rates at different levels and what that implies. That is not much of an encouragement to enter the world of democracy. It is a highly technical issue. Will the Minister now at least serve notice on the fact that he will be championing a general franchise for people of 16 to vote in future elections?

Alun Cairns: I think the hon. Gentleman is underestimating the capacity of young people to grasp technicalities. I have far more confidence in younger people to be able to consider such matters. He makes an important point, but it could easily be made in another
	debate. This is about extending the power to the Assembly to decide, and not about extending the franchise to young people per se. We are simply devolving the power. The Assembly has had a vote on extending the franchise to younger voters, and there was a majority in favour of it, but when it comes to make its own choice specifically on a matter such as this, who knows what will ultimately come forward.
	As a result, on Third Reading in the other place we tabled amendments to allow the Assembly to decide whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in an income tax referendum. As the volume of interventions we have heard indicates, this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider the matter, and I look forward to hearing the contributions that are to follow. It is the Assembly that will decide when to call a referendum, and it is right that it should decide who can vote in it. The amendment puts that decision in the hands of the Assembly, just as it was put in the hands of the Scottish Parliament for September’s referendum.
	These amendments also provide that if the Assembly resolves that the voting age is to be lowered to 16, the resulting order to be laid by the Secretary of State would also provide for the creation of a register of young voters. That register would include those who will have attained the age of 16 on the date of the income tax referendum and those age 17 who are not already listed on the register of local government electors as an attainer—that is, a 17-year-old who will turn 18 before the next electoral register is published. The important point is that those who have attained the age of 16 on the date of the poll would be eligible to vote in an income tax referendum if they appear on either the register of young voters or the register of local government electors.
	I should also be clear about what these amendments do not do. They do not devolve competence over the wider franchise to the Assembly, as I have previously stated, and they do not allow the Assembly to decide the voting age for any poll other than that for an income tax referendum. The franchise for elections in Wales remains solely within the power of this Parliament. I know that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House about reducing the voting age—we heard some of them earlier. I want to reassure hon. Members who might be concerned that these amendments set a precedent for future elections that they do not. It is important to underline that they do not set a precedent. They relate specifically to an income tax referendum in Wales, and to no other poll. They give the Assembly a choice for that referendum. If and when a trigger vote is held, it would be for the Assembly to decide whether the voting age will be 16 or 18. I therefore ask the House to support these amendments.

Nia Griffith: I am pleased to put on record Labour’s support for the Lords amendments to clause 13 and schedule 1, which will enable the Welsh Government to set a voting age of 16 in a future referendum on income tax powers. Labour believes that the National Assembly for Wales should have responsibility for its own electoral arrangements. Lords amendment 14 will insert a new subsection (1A) into clause 13 to provide that if the First Minister or a Welsh Minister moves a resolution in the Assembly under clause 13(1)(a) requesting that an order be made under clause 12 to
	cause an income tax referendum to be held in Wales, that resolution must state whether the voting age at such a referendum is to be 16 or 18.
	I have long been a supporter of votes at 16, on which Labour Members have provided a strong lead. I pay tribute particularly to Julie Morgan, a former MP and now Assembly Member for Cardiff North, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for their campaigning on the issue. We saw the success of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the Scottish independence referendum. Following the Smith commission, responsibility for electoral matters is on the cards to be devolved to Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the leader of the Labour party, has urged the UK Government to ensure that that happens in time for the 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament. Control over electoral arrangements should likewise be devolved to Wales and Northern Ireland.
	The Lords amendments reflect our belief that electoral arrangements should be devolved to Wales and our commitment to extending the franchise for all elections to 16 and 17-year-olds. Furthermore, this week my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party made it absolutely clear that a future Labour Government would legislate to lower the voting age to 16, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s position is that issue. We would also legislate to devolve electoral arrangements to the Welsh Assembly.

Jonathan Edwards: Plaid Cymru tabled amendments similar to those that the hon. Lady mentions during the Bill’s passage through this House, but I do not recall Labour supporting us. Has there been a sea change in Labour party policy since then?

Nia Griffith: I have made it clear what our policies are.
	With the advent of individual voter registration and the worry that many people, including many young voters, will fail to register under the new rules, which was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), lowering the voting—

Chris Ruane: A good way of ensuring that there is 100% registration of young people, instead of the current registration rate of 55%, would be if, at the same time as they are issued with a national insurance number at the age of fifteen and three quarters, they were automatically registered to vote.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Lowering the voting age to 16 could provide an impetus for registration campaigns in schools, as all young people are in compulsory education until 16. Such campaigns would be another opportunity to encourage young people to register to vote before their 16th birthday, and most would have at least one opportunity to use their vote before leaving home for university or job opportunities elsewhere.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as a drive to get registration as high as possible, efforts should be made to teach civics in schools to let pupils know the importance of the vote and the issues that they will be voting on?

Nia Griffith: Indeed. The Welsh Government have made significant progress on that matter with the Welsh baccalaureate.

Susan Elan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government’s position? I totally agree with their wish to devolve responsibility to the Welsh Assembly on matters to do with the referendum, but why cannot there be the same devolution in respect of the age at which people vote in Welsh Assembly elections? It is nothing short of patronising to 16 and 17-year-olds to say, “You might be able to vote in a referendum, but not in constituency or regional-based Assembly elections.” It makes no sense.

Nia Griffith: Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.
	In my long experience as a teacher, I always found that young people are ready to engage in discussion on a range of issues, and I have every confidence that 16 and 17-year-olds can be as well informed as other adults in respect of voting options. They have access to a far wider range of media and sources of information than back in 1969, when the voting age was last lowered. Indeed, when many of us were at school, our only access to current affairs came through being encouraged to read the daily papers in the school library.
	Sixteen-year-olds can join the armed forces and, with parental consent, get married. Many of them are active in the world of work, whether full or part time, and are therefore subject to employment law and health and safety law, or the lack thereof. They are subject to the law on national insurance contributions and income tax. It is wholly appropriate that the Bill should allow the Welsh Government to state in a resolution to cause an income tax referendum whether the age for qualifying to vote in that referendum should be 18 or 16. We support the Lords amendments.

Geraint Davies: In general, for the reasons that we have just heard, I am in favour of reducing the voting age to 16, both because of the increased awareness of young people and because the focus of budgetary control and discussion in the parliamentary arena will shift more towards education and investment in our future. My concern about this move in isolation, with 16-year-olds being allowed to vote on the highly technical issue of marginal tax rates and thresholds, is that the turnout in the referendum will be low, and the turnout of 16 to 18-year-olds will be extremely low and may discredit some of the excellent arguments that have been made for reducing the voting age to 16. I wonder what efforts the Government will make to educate these prospective voters so that they have an informed view about this technical issue.
	I was fortunate enough to study economics at university—obviously I understand all these issues—but a lot of people aged 16 to 18 will not have had that benefit. The issues are difficult. I support the move in general, but I am concerned that the turnout will be low, so I wonder what the Government will do about that.

Chris Ruane: I welcome the Government’s proposals to give 16 to 18-year-olds a vote in a referendum on income tax raising powers. I would also like those
	young people to have a general right to vote in all elections —general elections, Assembly elections, local elections and other referendums.
	I share the concern of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), however, as the move needs to be accompanied by civic education. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has a degree in economics, but even the great Member himself does not quite understand everything about the subject.

Geraint Davies: On a point of information, I do.

Chris Ruane: That is as may be.
	It is incumbent on us and the National Assembly for Wales to make sure that, if young people aged 16, 17 or 18 are to have the right to vote in the referendum, they have the relevant education, background and knowledge.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Surely part of our function is to ensure that we have an informed debate, and assisting people as they come to a conclusion about how to vote is part of our function as well, is it not?

Chris Ruane: I agree entirely, but that should not be left to a short campaign two or three weeks before a referendum; it should be as of right.
	I was a teacher for 15 years, admittedly in a primary school rather than a secondary one. We should try to teach these issues at a level that young people will understand. By the age of 18, someone has the right to have a mortgage. We need to make sure that young people are educated, in ways they understand, about mortgage rates, interest rates and student loans.

Stephen Crabb: I know that the hon. Gentleman is in no way belittling primary school children, but I should say that I have faced some of my most challenging questions when visiting primary schools, not least about the Chartist movement when I visited a Newport primary school.

Chris Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I used to delegate the collection of the orange squash money to the brightest child in the class, whose money-counting skills were greater than mine.
	We need to educate young people, especially about student loans and VAT, so that when they put their X in the box, they are making an informed decision. They need to know the crucial difference between progressive and regressive taxes.

Mark Williams: Like the hon. Gentleman, I used to teach primary school children. He will be aware of the sense of injustice that primary school children and older children will feel. The biggest injustice does not relate to not being educated on these matters, but to being denied a vote in one election and then allowed a vote in another. Yes, we welcome what the Government have done—I pay tribute to Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford in the other place who pushed the issue forward—but is not the biggest injustice the inconsistency between different elections?

Chris Ruane: I agree entirely. I would prefer it if young people were able to vote in all elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said that he was wary of Tories bringing gifts, but I welcome this gift from them to 16 and 17-year-olds, especially as such gifts do not usually come from their party.
	The move represents a foot in the door for opening up voting rights to 16 to 18-year-olds in other elections. The small precedent of voting in one referendum has been set. A path has been paved ready, I hope, for when Labour gets in in May, and we can point to this as a precedent and say, “If it’s been done for a referendum, it can be done for all other votes.”
	We need to look particularly carefully at the registration of 16 to 18-year-olds, as that will have to start quite early on. Using the precedent that 18-year-olds can be registered to vote at the age of 16, perhaps these young people should be registered at the age of 14. As I said earlier, a golden opportunity comes when a young person’s national insurance number is issued at the age of 15 and three quarters. I have raised this point in parliamentary questions. Currently a young person can be registered at 16. Could not that be taken back three months to 15 and three quarters, when their national insurance number is issued? With the introduction of individual electoral registration, a person’s national insurance number is required when they fill in the registration form. Why not arrange to have that form filled in on the day when the elector gets their national insurance number? That would make eminent sense, and it would also get over the fact that only 55% of 18-year-olds are registered, as I said earlier, and only 44% of them vote. Only 25% of young people take part in the democratic process.
	That has consequences for young people as individuals and for the whole of society. Let me give a practical example. One of the first steps the coalition Government took was to increase student loans from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year, so, for an average student, the total rose from £9,000 to £27,000. Would they have taken such measures against pensioners, whose registration rates are 96% and whose voting rates are 86%? The fact that young people are not registered and voting means that political parties—all political parties—will bear that in mind when they are drawing up their policies. It is important that we have maximum registration from the outset for 16-year-old who will have the right to vote.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that when we come to discuss things economic with young people who may not be highly qualified, it is best to avoid phrases like “post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory”?

Geraint Davies: That was what I learned in school.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend is taking issue with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a place for such terminology in some debates, but perhaps not those with 16-year-olds.
	The issue of civics should go beyond finance and how we organise our economy. The finances of a country can impinge on wider issues such as racism, sexism and consumerism. There are threats from parties out there that are against the fabric of our British society. They want to promote the issue of race. It is fine if they want to discuss that, but it has to be done with intelligence, not bigotry.
	The introduction of voting rights for young people at the age of 16 for the income tax raising powers referendum is a good idea. We should be very wary of what the Electoral Commission has done—or has not done—in the past if we are to make sure that these young people are registered. The Electoral Commission should be contacting electoral registration officers in the 22 authorities in Wales to make sure that they know how to register these young people. It should be regularly monitoring best practice from around the UK—indeed, around the world—and relaying that information to the Welsh Government in Cardiff to make sure that best practice is pursued in Wales for the purposes of registration for the referendum.
	Best practice in registering young people exists in Northern Ireland. The EROs in Northern Ireland are proactive in going out to schools to register young people. We should be doing that, but the Electoral Commission has refused to replicate in the rest of the UK what is now done in Northern Ireland.
	The Electoral Commission has failed to ensure that electoral registration officers obey the law. Statutorily, they must knock on the door of non-responders. If a 16-year-old was not registered to vote for the referendum, for example, the local ERO would have to go round, knock on the door and register that 16-year-old. Even though that requirement has been set out in law for many years, there has not been a single prosecution of an ERO who has broken the law. One ERO in Devon has broken the law by not conducting a door-to-door canvass for five years on the trot, but the Electoral Commission has done nothing about it.
	We should make sure that the Electoral Commission warns EROs in Wales about that. We do have best practice in Wales. My own electoral registration officer, Gareth Evans, is one of best performing EROs in the whole country, but not all officers are as good as him, and we need to make sure that they all perform at the standards of the best so that young people are registered.
	The Electoral Commission has failed miserably to use the most effective and efficient third-party organisations, such as Bite the Ballot, to get young people on to the electoral register. Bite the Ballot can register young people for as little as 25p per registration, but when one compares the cost of the Electoral Commission’s advertising campaign with the number of registration forms downloaded from the internet, it spent £80 per registration in 2005. The commission should therefore work with EROs in Wales, as well as with Bite the Ballot, to encourage them to ensure that 16-year-olds are registered from the outset.
	This is a great opportunity, and I congratulate both elements of the coalition, especially the Conservatives. It is not in their nature to extend the vote. They are rightly fearful of young people, which is perhaps why they are not talking much about the lack of registration at national level. Registration rates in some wards in student areas of big university cities such as Manchester and Liverpool are as low as 20% following the move over to IER. I congratulate everyone, including my Front-Bench colleagues, and I hope that we will learn from this opportunity and go on to extend to 16 to 18-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for the positive way in which he has ended this debate. He contributed to it by
	highlighting the need for young people to be educated about the process, and the need for us to engage with the activities of electoral registration officers, which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams).
	The Lords amendments are intended to be positive. They will extend the powers of the Assembly. They provide greater powers than those in the original Bill, and this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss them. At some stages of the debate, I felt that although all parties are in favour of those powers, they were being welcomed almost through gritted teeth. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd for finishing on a positive note.
	Some hon. Members said that they have campaigned for votes at 16 for a very long time, but if there was such support, the extension of the vote could have been done during the 13 years of the previous Labour Administration. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out that he tabled amendments at the time they were certainly not accepted by Labour. However, I want to be positive.

Nick Smith: It is a shame that the Minister is speaking on a sour note. May I ask him to bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made about encouraging electoral registration officers and others to register young people at age 15, when they get their national insurance number? That seems a good idea, so will the Minister contact his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to encourage it? It would be administratively neat and I suspect that, as my hon. Friend suggested, it would help boost voter registration among young people, which has to be a good thing. We should have this debate in that positive way rather than go in a sour direction, as the Minister did.

Alun Cairns: I do not intend to be sour in any way, shape or form. I want to be positive, because the Bill will extend the powers of the Assembly and is welcomed
	by all parties. It is important that it is recognised in that way, rather than in the churlish way in which it has been welcomed in some quarters. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point positively, and the Cabinet Office will have heard his suggestion and the contributions of other Members, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. Those points go well beyond the scope of the Lords amendments, but they have been well made and received in a positive way, which is how the debate should finish.
	The Bill has passed through both Houses, and we all need to recognise that it represents a major shift in powers and that there is a great opportunity for Wales, the Assembly and the Welsh Government if they use those powers productively and enthusiastically. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for how he has handled the Bill since taking office, but also to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), for his contribution in steering the Bill through the House, and to Baroness Randerson for her activities in the other place. I also pay tribute to the officials and everyone else who has worked on the Bill, particularly in the Wales Office. I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment 14 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
	Lords amendments 15 and 16 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Mr Wallace.)
	Question agreed to.

PRISON OFFICERS (WORK-RELATED STRESS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Wallace.)

John McDonnell: The background to the debate is the publication last month of a report on work-related stress and the well-being of prison officers. It was commissioned by the Prison Officers Association because of the union’s ongoing serious concerns about the health of its members, especially in light of the Government’s policy of increasing the retirement age to 68 for prison officers and the startling cuts that have taken place.
	The report was undertaken by three experts in the field of occupational health, and particularly occupational psychology, at the university of Bedfordshire. I pay tribute to those researchers for their assiduous work. They were Dr Gail Kinman, who is professor of occupational health psychology; Dr Andrew Clements, a lecturer in occupational psychology; and, assisting them, Jacqui Hart, a PhD candidate and researcher. All of them are appropriately qualified and have high reputations in the field.
	Let me take the House through some of the findings of the research, which many of us have found shocking to say the least. The Health and Safety Executive establishes benchmarks to measure and monitor work-related stress among employees. Those benchmarks have been developed into a framework after extensive consultation with employers and the unions, and they are agreed standards by which organisations employing staff can assess the work-related stress experienced by those staff.
	There are seven elements of work activity—described as the psycho-social hazards—and they are the most critical predictions of employee well-being. They relate first to the demands of the job—the work load, pace, and hours of work—and to control of work, which is the way a person can control their working environment. There is also management support, peer support—the help workers receive from their colleagues—and relationships, which includes interpersonal relationships, interpersonal conflicts and bullying. The benchmarks also include the measurement of the role and whether the job requirements are clear, and whether or not there is belief in the objectives of the organisation. The final benchmark is about change and how well that is communicated and managed in an organisation. The Health and Safety Executive has developed a self-reporting questionnaire that is widely used across industry and the public service.

Chris Ruane: Last week I met representatives from the Prison Officers Association to discuss mindfulness in the Prison Service. Mindfulness has been accepted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an intervention for repeat episodes of depression, but it also improves compassion, reduces absenteeism, helps with relationship building, and reduces stress. Does my hon. Friend think that mindfulness in the Prison Service could help improve job satisfaction and the mental and physical health of prison officers?

John McDonnell: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend in this House in introducing mindfulness training for Members as well as staff, and developing that whole concept. I have explored the development of
	mindfulness which, despite elements of contention, has become extremely popular in its application in working environments. I will suggest to the Minister that we need a meeting to talk about the strategy from here on in, and one provision we could include in that is the offer of services such as mindfulness in the sector, which could prove extremely effective.

Chris Ruane: A new prison is to be built in Wrexham and the chief executive of North Wales health authority is predisposed towards mindfulness. Does my hon. Friend think that teaching mindfulness to prisoners and prison officers at that new prison from the outset would be a good experiment and pilot scheme for mindfulness in prisons?

John McDonnell: Given our concerns about that prison—a Titan prison that will house a larger number of prisoners than any other prison has housed—and given our concerns about the scale of such a prison and the problems that will result from it, I think mindfulness would be an important strategy that should be built in from the beginning.
	As I was saying, the health and safety questionnaire was developed in consultation with employers and union representatives. It is now used widely across the public and private sectors and is based on a self-report questionnaire. It is a standard procedure used by academics who in this case established a survey online. They received 1,682 respondents, which is as large as any national opinion poll, and it was a fairly representative sample.

Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman warmly on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The Prison Service is little short of being in crisis. Since 2010, prison officer numbers have been cut by 41%, but the prison population has gone up. The ratio of prison officers to prisoners has never been so bad, and that is a danger. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are officers of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet us to discuss this important issue.

John McDonnell: I know that the Minister cares about this issue, and I alerted him in advance of this debate that that is one of the requests that we would make. The survey is shocking. Even the in-house survey carried out by the National Offender Management Service has some shocking results in comparison with other areas of the public service. I will come on to my request for a meeting on how we might take this issue forward.
	In the survey, the prison officers scored considerably worse than any other sector on all the seven hazard indicators. There were large gaps—the well-being gap—on issues such as demands of the job; the control that people feel they have of their work; management support, which is extremely disappointing; and relationships and change. The gap was less on peer support, so prison officers appear to get better support from their colleagues than they do from management.
	The survey was compared with the London prisons survey of 2010. The levels of well-being for peer support were similar, but the scores for management support, control, the roles that people play and relationships were considerably poorer. The management of change was rated considerably poorer than in the earlier survey.
	The quotes from the individual members surveyed can be more revealing than the figures. One of the questions was about time and other pressures of work. I could cite numerous quotes from the report—I have provided the Minister with a copy—but I shall give just a few:
	“The pressure is on from the time you walk in to the time you walk out. It is full on all the time. You try to get a moment to yourself but something always crops up and you are off again.”
	Another officer says:
	“Currently, with the staffing shortfalls and the new regime they’ve got in place, it is constant crisis-management every day of the week. There is no let up.”
	On every question, the individual responses are stark and revealing. On management support, one officer said:
	“No support or care. No compassion. More time spent defending ourselves against management than against inmates.”
	Another said:
	“Previously, every person I had to line manage I knew as an individual. I knew their strengths and their weaknesses. Now I’m lucky if I see the staff I report on once every couple of months.”
	Prison officers work in a very specific environment, dealing with challenging individuals, so there is always a risk of violence and intimidation, but I did not realise the scale of that until I read the survey.

Ian Lavery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prison Service is not only in crisis, but is a powder keg? Somebody must be held accountable because someone, somewhere will be seriously hurt in the Prison Service. Nine members of staff are assaulted daily, which means 3,400 a year, up 9.4%. More dramatically, serious assaults on staff have increased by 36% since 2010. What does that say about the Prison Service at this time?

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend refers to the crisis in our prisons, which is a consistent theme coming out not just from this survey but from all the discussions that have taken place, including the representations we have received from both prison officers and former governors.
	A total of 49% of prison officers said that they receive intimidation and threats from prisoners often and regularly, and 30% had been assaulted with more than half of those having to take time off as a result. On the level of management support, 70% said there was little support from management. There is one quote from a prison officer that I found particularly startling:
	“I have seen active service whilst in the army, but I have never felt as vulnerable and threatened as I do in my current role.”
	On stress, one third reported that their doctor had diagnosed them with stress-related illness—a clinical diagnosis of stress—since working for their current employer. It was also felt that there was a stigma attached to disclosing stress, and that it could make a prison officer subject to discrimination. That is extremely worrying.
	The survey included a general health questionnaire that is used to assess aspects of psychological health and somatic symptoms, such as feeling run down or suffering from headaches, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction—not being able to enjoy everyday life, or not being able to make decisions—and depression, where
	people felt that life was hopeless. I was shocked by the figures. Six out of 10 reported that they were under strain. The worst figure was that one in 10 reported that sometimes life was just not worth living. The researchers who undertook the survey are experts in this field. They said that there were unusually high levels of psychological distress and that a high proportion required some degree of intervention to improve their well-being.
	Another issue considered was emotional exhaustion— the concept of burn-out. This was extremely high, with 74% saying that they felt emotionally drained at work at least once a week. Some of that related to physical health, with 18% reporting chronic health problems. Hypertension is the most common problem. The survey also included questions about work-life balance, which is one of the psychosocial issues that comes up when assessing one’s enjoyment of work and career. Eight out of 10 responded that their time at work stopped them participating in family life, and six out of 10 frequently felt too emotionally drained to participate in family life. They were asked a question that is fairly common in such surveys: whether they dwelt on work problems outside of work. Some 70% said they could not switch off, while 50% were troubled by work-related issues when not at work. On job satisfaction, six out of 10 had considered leaving the Prison Service in the near future, and seven out of 10 said that if they could choose again they would choose a different job.
	What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it is blindingly obvious from the survey that psychosocial working conditions are far from satisfactory. None of the Health and Safety Executive’s objective benchmarks has been met. The researchers said that the psychological stress levels for this group of workers were far higher than in other emotionally demanding occupations, including police and social workers, with reports of anxiety, sleep disruption, cognitive failure including memory loss and, most worryingly, the one in 10 who felt that life was not worth living. The researchers said that there is an urgent need for employment bodies to take steps to protect the psychological well-being of their staff.
	Some of these issues have to be addressed urgently. Like other Members, I have talked to POA members, front-line staff and representatives, and the same story comes up time and again. Staffing cuts have placed the service in crisis, and the staff and the prisoners they look after are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned the number of assaults. Nine members of staff are assaulted every day—up 9.4% recently—which is 3,400 a year, while the number of serious assaults is up 36%. Last year, we published a report on prison violence. It was circulated to hon. Members, but I will place it again in the Library. It was a shocking report, and I make no apologies for insisting that pictures of assault victims be published as well, because they are absolutely horrendous. Nobody should have to experience or risk that on a daily basis in their working lives.
	As we know, the number of prison suicides has increased by 69%. It is a tragedy for the prisoner and their families, but it also has an impact on other prisoners and the staff who have to handle and deal with the suicide. All the evidence suggests that it can be devastating for the members of staff, and there is evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among staff who have to deal with suicides.
	I return to the conclusion that many have reached, which is that much of this is related to staffing cuts. I have asked for the figures provided by the Prison Service to the Prison Service Pay Review Body, because I thought that they would be the most accurate. There has been a cut in staff numbers from 51,212 to 37,218 in the past four years—a cut of 27.3%. In the prison officer grades, there has been a cut from 25,553 to 18,934 members of staff—a 25.9% cut. I know that various figures are bandied about—the Minister and others have presented us with various figures—but whatever the exact figures, the scale of the cuts has been acknowledged overall.
	As I said in the Justice Committee, I think the Government miscalculated the prison population and cut too many staff, and I am told that they are now recruiting up to 1,700 officers—almost in a panic measure—and trying to recruit the 800 staff laid off in the last year into a reserve army to be used almost on an agency basis. As a result of the staff cuts, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, there has been a significant increase in the staff to prisoner ratio from 1:2.9 in 2010 to 1:3.8. Overall, that means we have fewer members of staff looking after more offenders.
	Staffing numbers are an issue, but staffing support also matters. The Minister has a responsibility—well, we all have a responsibility—to build sufficient staff resource into the system to address the stress and psychological well-being issues identified in the report. I have heard reports of what is available to staff now, but there seems to be a significant lack of confidence in the facilities available and in the management support given to staff.
	The POA and prison officers generally have also raised the issue of the retirement age. Prison officers now face having to work until they are 68. When he reported on public sector pensions provision, Lord Hutton recommended that exceptions be made to the overall increase in pension age for uniformed services, where
	“the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved. The Government should consider setting a…Normal Pension Age of 60 across the uniformed…services…and keep this under…review.”
	Unfortunately, the only uniformed services identified were the police, armed forces and firefighters. For some reason I have yet to discover, prison officers were not included, even though they are a uniformed service and even though, as we see from the research, they are suffering from greater stress and psychological problems arising from their workload—more than the police or social workers.

Ian Lavery: Is it right that in 2014, we as a nation should be asking 68-year-old men and women to tackle some of the most dangerous people in the country?

John McDonnell: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. A question was put to prison officers in a survey, and 75% indicated that working after 60 would very much or significantly impair their job performance. The prison officers do not think that they can do their job effectively after the age of 60. I have to say that sometimes we just have to listen to the people who do the job.
	I had some discussions with prison officers and a number of them agreed with the view that they were being asked to do an impossible job. They said that they were being put under unacceptable further pressure and
	that the Government needed to look again at the issue of pension age and at why this uniformed service was discriminated against in comparison with the others.
	Let me suggest a way forward. We received research commissioned by the POA but undertaken independently by the university of Bedfordshire, and there is also the Prison Service’s own survey. Particularly concerning are the differences between the scores highlighted for members of the Prison Service in comparison with others in the civil service. There were large discrepancies between how people felt about their job and how they were being treated. Let me cite an example. When it came to recommending Her Majesty’s Prison Service as a great place to work, only 21% were positive. In the area on “my work” there was a score of minus 15% in comparison with the civil service survey and from high performers the score was minus 18%. On “my manager”, it was minus 24%; and on “resources and workload” it was minus 19%—and so it goes on. When it came to discrimination, bullying and harassment, 19% said that they had experienced discrimination at work over the past 12 months, while 18% had experienced the bullying or harassment themselves. Even in the National Offender Management Service survey, some of the figures are somewhat worrying.
	The overall evidence from the university of Bedfordshire and even from the Government’s own survey shows clearly that we need another way forward. First, we need an urgent meeting between the justice unions parliamentary group and the Minister to discuss the research and to establish how to develop support for staff and tackle some of the identified issues of work-related stress.
	Secondly, in light of this research, I urge the Government to look again at the pension age of prison officers. If necessary, they should commission further research if the current research is not satisfactory. If we need a more detailed examination of forcing prison officers to work until they are 68, I would welcome the opportunity at least to engage in a further review of that decision, backed up by further research.
	The third issue is about staffing. I know that the Minister will report that new staff are being recruited. I hope that that happens as quickly as possible and that we can get them trained and into our prisons. We have, however, lost a lot of experienced trained staff as a result of the cuts. As a consequence, I believe that our prisons are now not only less safe, but are not fulfilling the role of rehabilitation that we want them to fulfil. Thus, for now and the future, lessons need to be learned from the staffing cuts that we have seen. I am convinced that we will have a constructive response from the Minister to the idea of having a meeting and working on these issues together to resolve what I find to be an extremely worrying situation.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Mr Speaker: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has the agreement of the Minister.

Elfyn Llwyd: Perhaps I could ask the Minister whether I have his agreement.

Mr Speaker: It is the normal convention. The Minister is a very agreeable and agreeing sort of fellow, and so is the right hon. Gentleman. I therefore think that we can probably proceed in a harmonious manner, subject only
	to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) being content. I anticipate that he will agree, because he is a caring, sharing Member.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and, given the number of years that I have been in the House, I am amazed. One learns something new every day, and I am obliged to you for having taught me something extra today.
	Over the years, in my capacity as a lawyer, I have visited many prisons. When prisons are overcrowded, the atmosphere can almost be cut with a knife. Some years ago, I visited someone who was on remand in Bedford prison. In those days, Bedford was as overcrowded as some of our prisons typically are today. It was not a very comfortable place to be in, even for an hour’s conference with an accused person, and I wonder what it was like for prison staff, and for the prisoners themselves, when there was lockdown for 15 or 16 hours a day. Lockdown is one of the facets of overcrowding. It means no rehabilitation, and it means that there is little likelihood of someone’s coming out of a prison in a better frame of mind than the one in which he or she went in.
	I applaud the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for seeking time for discussion of this matter. I was also at the launch of the report to which he referred, and I think that it is a valuable document. We are always talking about the need for evidence-based policy, and this report is evidence-based if ever anything was. Three academics, specialists in their field, were commissioned to prepare it, and I am sure that the Minister will not in any way seek to impugn their integrity by suggesting that because it was commissioned by the Prison Officers Association, they might have reached a view before the evidence had been collated. That would be unfair and unjustified, and I can see no basis for it.
	I shall truncate my speech, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has made all the points that needed to be made, but I shall make one or two brief observations. As the Minister will know, overcrowding increases the risk of violence. Unfortunately, the risk of violence is very high at present. I know that there is a difference of opinion between the Ministry of Justice and the Justice Committee, of which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I are members, but something that could well be described as a potential crisis is now on our doorstep.
	Prison officers are, by and large, rough, tough individuals. They are not shrinking violets by any means; if they were, they would not be in the job in the first place. However, in the report, one prison officer said:
	“I feel…let down. I signed up with the prison service at 21 to work until I was 60. 1 am now 48, and my health and stamina are starting to weaken. I do not feel strong enough to cope with the young prisoners who are more violent than ever before and have more freedom to attack staff and get away with it. Being told I have to work till 68 is the last straw—I will be burned out or dead before I get to retire”.
	Another said:
	“When involved in restraining prisoners I find I pick up little niggling injuries a lot more than I did 10 years ago. I know I will not physically be able to deal with this part of the job when I am over 60.”
	And another gentleman said:
	“No matter how fit you are, at 68 you are not going to be able to fight or roll round the floor doing C and R with a 20-25 year old who goes to the gym every day and pumps iron.”
	I do not think that we need to stress those points. Suffice it to say that prison officers feel greatly under threat. As the Minister knows, there is now a higher incidence of lockdown, which is never a happy position for prisoners, staff or anyone to be in. It creates a bad atmosphere, and it sets any thought of rehabilitation backward. That, in my view, is fairly obvious.
	The report is excellent, and it provides good evidence. If the Minister thinks that other reports should be prepared, so be it, but I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in asking him to meet members of the justice unions’ parliamentary group, of which the hon. Gentleman and I are officers. We want to discuss this matter not to make any political points, but to ensure that we have a healthy and safe environment for prisoners and prison staff in order to maximise rehabilitation and, above all, safety. One of the ways forward is to reconsider the definition of uniformed agencies. That point has been made and brings to mind Lord Hutton’s view. I urge the Minister to take heed of both what has been said in this debate and the need for an urgent meeting so we can discuss these matters fully—not, as I said, to make political points and for point scoring, but because they are urgent issues and we as parliamentarians and Ministers need to address them in the best way we possibly can.
	I thank the Minister for agreeing, in that rather strange way across the Chamber, for me to have my tuppence-worth, and you, Mr Speaker, for your forbearance in this matter.

Chris Ruane: I echo the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Minister for letting me speak, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I also congratulate him on securing this debate.
	I had not intended to speak. I was halfway out the door when I heard the subject of the debate, and I came back to listen to it because it is an important subject. My hon. Friend has given some crucial facts to us, such as that 60% of prison officers feel under tremendous strain and one in 10 feel that life is not worth living. These are terrible statistics. I would like to add to those the statistics that I have received from parliamentary questions, such as that 90% of prisoners have one of the top five psychiatric conditions, and, as my hon. Friend said, that there has been a 69% increase in prison suicides over the past year alone. If we have prison officers on one side who are highly stressed and prisoners on the other side who are highly stressed, that is a recipe for disaster. It is a potentially explosive situation which I think needs to be looked at in the round.
	I want to be consensual in what I say, but I do think stopping prisoners receiving books, or proposing to do that, was a step backwards. It was a step towards the 19th century, not the 21st century. I hope the rest of my speech will be consensual, however.
	Within society itself, there is a mental health crisis. According to another parliamentary question I put down, there was a 500% increase in the issuing of prescriptions
	for anti-depressants between 1991 and 2011, from 9 million prescriptions to 49 million. There is an issue in society, therefore, but it is exacerbated within prisons.
	As I mentioned in my intervention, I believe that mindfulness can play an important role in helping us to get on top of these issues. Mindfulness was introduced in Parliament by me and Professor Richard Layard, a Labour Lord, in January last year. Some 115 MPs and Lords have been involved, and 10% of MPs have had mindfulness training. It has been introduced here in Parliament, which is a hothouse—there is a lot of stress here—and I think it can be rolled out to the Prison Service, the police service and the armed services.
	What matters is how we pitch mindfulness as an intervention, so that it is accepted. In fact it is quite chic. Arianna Huffington of TheHuffington Post practises and preaches it. It is done by Apple, Google and all the top international companies. If it is good enough for the captains of industry, it is also good enough for ordinary workers like prison officers and police officers, and, indeed, their clients, in tandem—because mindfulness works best when it includes the teacher and the pupil, the GP and the patient, so that compassion is increased.
	I believe that if we were to introduce mindfulness in prisons, it would help with a whole range of issues. Prisoners are literally a captive audience. They are in there 24 hours a day, and what do they do? Do they learn the skills that mindfulness brings—the skills of gratitude, appreciation, personal balance and equanimity that would help them to be better prisoners? Those skills would help them to be less violent towards the prison guards and to be better citizens when they move out into society.
	This has worked in the past. Prison officers and police officers face stressful situations. A £5 million grant was given to the US Marines to undertake mind -fulness training in a pre-combat situation. They were trained in the US before they went out to Afghanistan and Iraq and it worked. Indeed, it was such a success that it is now being rolled out to the US army. If it can work for big beefy Marines, it could work for British prison officers. The work with the Marines involved a five-year pilot project. The results are still coming in, but they are all positive.
	The biggest impacts for the Marines were not only in the field among the officers and their fellow Marines, but in their relationships with their spouses and children when they got back to the US. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the fact that prison officers felt disconnected when they went home at night and were unable to take part in family activities because they were so stressed out. Also, they do not earn fantastic wages. All jobs are stressful, but sometimes these officers’ family lives and community lives are destroyed because of needless stress. Sometimes we politicians take decisions that make people’s jobs even more stressful, and the stress for those officers has been cranked up in recent years with the increase in the number of prisoners and the reduction in the number of prison officers.
	We have a golden opportunity to introduce mindfulness in prisons. Prison officers and police officers were in Parliament last week, in Westminster Hall, to meet representatives of the Mindfulness Initiative, which is looking into the use of mindfulness in the criminal justice system, in education, in the health service and in
	the workplace. We have taken evidence from experts across the UK and around the world, and we are now drawing up policies that we hope to present on 15 January next year. I will send the Minister a copy of those policies, and I hope that he will be able to make an assessment of the role of mindfulness in the prison service and the emergency services.
	I hope, too, that the Minister will consider introducing mindfulness in the new prison in Wrexham. Health services are devolved; they are a Welsh Government issue and a North Wales Health Authority issue. Prison services, however, are not devolved. There needs to be a meeting between the health authority, Ministers in Cardiff and Ministers here in London to consider setting up a pilot project to measure key indicators such as the absenteeism of prison officers, the recidivism of prisoners and the stress levels of all involved. If mindfulness worked in the Wrexham setting, perhaps it could be rolled out across the whole of the British prison service for the benefit of the prison officers, of the prisoners and of wider society.

Andrew Selous: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who initiated the debate. He is a member of the Justice Committee, as is the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I almost regretted allowing the right hon. Gentleman to speak, for fear of being unable to pronounce the name of his constituency, but I hope that I have done it justice.
	Last, but certainly not least, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for his remarks. Let me deal with his points about mindfulness straight away. I can tell him that the NHS has set out five ways to well-being, the fifth of which is mindfulness. The Ministry of Justice has already started working on this issue and will launch projects on mindfulness in the new year. The director of NOMS in Wales, Sarah Payne, takes a particular interest in this important issue, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
	Let me say at the outset that prison officers face significant demands on a daily basis, and that working effectively with some of the most difficult members of society face to face takes a special set of skills, values and ability. I am immensely proud of the commitment of our prison staff in delivering their work. Behind the closed walls of prisons, these civil servants undertake essential services on behalf of society, and they do so professionally to keep us all safe. The POA-commissioned survey on work-related stress among prison officers draws attention to several important themes. Although there are some differences in the outcomes of the separate 2014 NOMS staff survey, it would be wrong to dwell on those at the expense of a more focused debate. We need to understand the work environment that prison officers encounter on a daily basis and what is done to support those charged with carrying out one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in society. It is also important to recognise that the challenge that prison officers face has increased over recent months as a consequence of staffing shortages, an unexpected rise in the prisoner population and the unprecedented change being delivered by the prison benchmarking programme. That programme has the support of the POA.
	Substantial work is under way to address the shortfalls and to support change but, in the short term, it is understandable that many staff have felt under significantly more pressure during 2014. It is also important to acknowledge that, regrettably, that position has been exacerbated by an increase in prisoner assaults on staff and prison violence in general. Understandably, in some cases staff have reported to governors that they feel less safe. I want to make it absolutely clear that NOMS understands that, and that every incident and every event of violence against NOMS staff is taken extremely seriously. It is not acceptable that any member of staff is injured in the line of duty.

Ian Lavery: Does the Minister share my concerns about the situation at HMP Northumberland, which is in my area? When that prison was privatised, Sodexo immediately reduced the work force by a third, yet the prison population has been increasing. Have not prison officers who are left to carry out the work every right to be stressed? What will the Minister do about it?

Andrew Selous: Those who manage contracted prisons absolutely have a duty to make sure that they keep their staff as well. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will go on to say what we are doing about this important issue.
	NOMS takes its responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 very seriously. We are working towards a new protocol for escalating matters when prison staff are victims of assault to the Crown Prosecution Service, which rightly recognises the seriousness of these incidents. In my time as Minister, I have encountered excellent examples of how governors and their teams have worked closely with staff and trade unions to listen to concerns and to introduce more structured regimes that better reflect the resource available and provide more reassurance for staff.
	It is also relevant to this debate that we are clear about what NOMS is doing to address the staffing situation and that we explore in more detail the significant welfare support that NOMS already has in place to support this group of front-line public servants in critical roles. To address the staffing shortfalls, NOMS has over the past few months recruited new prison officers at unprecedented levels: 850 will have joined by Christmas, with a further 250 by February; and NOMS is on target to have recruited 1,700 in total by April. Plans are already in place to meet the future prison officer recruitment plan for 2015-16, with a further 1,000 prison officers starting at that point.
	In addition, NOMS has an active staff reserve, which is made up of experienced former prison officers, to provide flexible additional support as part of a modernised service. As those resources come into place in prisons, the operational pressures on staff to work additional payment-plus hours and to provide detached duty support to other prisons will reduce significantly and beneficially in the new year. That information has been welcomed by POA colleagues and will impact positively on staff well-being.
	In the new year, as prisons begin to reach their new benchmark staffing levels and transition to new safe, decent and secure operating levels, staff will have an
	increased opportunity to focus on the quality of the work that originally interested them, namely to reduce reoffending and to change lives for the better.
	The evidence that the Prison Service continues to provide a rewarding career in which staff are able to change lives is irrefutable. It is demonstrated in the commitment and tenacity that prison officers have shown in recent months in the difficult circumstances that I have described. It is also evident in the organisation’s ability to attract 1,700 new prison officer recruits.
	Staff turnover is only 2% for NOMS employees. Officer leaving rates for 2013-14 were 3.8%. More than 96% of the officers employed by NOMS choose to stay. The average length of service of a prison officer is 14 years. This is a demanding but rewarding role in which staff can and do make a significant and positive impact on offenders’ lives.
	NOMS will continue to support staff and to provide them with the skills and development opportunities that they need to be able to perform their duties with confidence. New prison officers are tested for their suitability to work in a prison environment. They must pass a fitness test and full occupational health assessment before they are appointed to the role. Importantly, NOMS training investment also includes a strong focus on providing the necessary training and development that line managers need to support, coach and mentor staff.
	For those staff who are regrettably assaulted on duty or who suffer ill health as a result of the impact of their work, there are well-established support mechanisms in place to help. It is perhaps one of the disappointing aspects of the POA-sponsored survey that it does not reflect the exceptional work between staff, managers and occupational health that has, in many cases, led to staff returning successfully to full duties through phased return-to-work programmes and counselling support.
	We are committed to running safe establishments and are working hard to reduce violence in our prisons. We do not tolerate violence of any kind in prison and any assault is taken extremely seriously. A new violence reduction project is being established. There will be guidance to governors on that issue in early 2015, and we will implement a coherent set of short-term tangible actions that are aimed at reducing violence, some of which may involve trialling innovative approaches in targeted establishments.
	The violence reduction project has been created to gain better understanding of the causes of the current levels of violence in prisons and to ensure that there is strength in the handling of violence in terms of both prevention and response. The project will consider such issues as the use of body-worn video cameras for prison officers, raising our intelligence capability to protect those officers and staff, developing more robust case management of violent prisoners, and the potential impact of the growing use of new psychoactive substances. We expect to be able to announce more in the new year.
	We have always had a complex and challenging prison population, but we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that we carefully manage the increased levels of violence. We are also committed to managing violence and supporting the victims of assaults. The new joint protocol, to which I have referred, which is produced by NOMS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, will set out that when there are
	serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrator will be prosecuted unless there is a good reason why not. As I have said, that initiative has been warmly welcome by the Prison Officers Association.
	The increase in serious assaults is wholly unacceptable. However, we are holding a more violent population and, as I have told the Justice Committee, the number of people sentenced to prison for violent offences has increased by 40% over the past decade. We will never tolerate violence against our staff. We do not underestimate the hard work and challenges that they face on a daily basis and are continually looking at new ways to offer support. We are exploring new technology to protect staff, including body cameras and slash-resistant material to be worn under shirts.
	The access that prison staff have to a range of counselling interventions is on a par with the very best of employers. Staff are provided with an occupational health adviser, who will work with them and their line manager to support them in the goal of a successful return to work. We have many examples of that working well. When staff are involved in a difficult prisoner incident, a structure that involves the use of in-house staff care teams, staffing debriefs and continuing support comes into effect as a matter of course.
	Equally, the access that staff who are unable to work for a period of time have to sick pay provides a full opportunity for them to recuperate before returning to work. For staff who are unable to work for a period of time due to sickness absence, NOMS will pay six months on full pay and six months on half pay as part of the individual’s terms and conditions of employment. That can be extended in the case of an injury at work, as the governor has the opportunity to grant sick absence excusal in appropriate cases.
	In recognition of the stressful nature of the prison working environment, NOMS is committed to supporting the well-being of staff by reducing stress and increasing employee attendance. There is also well-publicised support available to staff, including a comprehensive employee assistance programme, which operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It includes access to counselling and other therapies as required, a health promotion website and well-being zone, specialist trauma support services and mediation. A network of peer support in the form of care teams also operates in every prison and can be extremely effective.
	Work on improving the management of stress in NOMS includes: regional stress action plans; individual stress risk assessments; a 24-hour helpline for staff; the inclusion of stress-related issues in people plans, listen-to-improve sessions and team meetings; governors using team meetings and focus groups to identify local stress issues, to show transparency in decision making and to offer feedback in resolving them; and the roll-out of stress-awareness workshops across the estate.
	In addition to that support, I want to take this opportunity to share some of the good practice happening in the prison estate. There are numerous examples of governors maintaining regular contact with staff who are off and of presenting deputy director of custody commendations in cases where staff have been assaulted. The young people’s estate is also developing and implementing a post-assault protocol for supporting staff, which identifies a process to follow to ensure that staff are fully supported when they return to work.
	Well-being days are also actively pursued as establishments recognise what a positive impact they have on staff. Staff who have been off sick are being given a mentor outside their line management. Staff have also been visited by their governor, either at home or in a neutral venue, and numerous establishments have referred staff to bespoke counselling sessions. I want to put all that on record to show the full extent of the care we take to look after our staff when they are assaulted, wholly unacceptably, in the line of their work.
	In 2013-14, NOMS delivered 49 staff well-being events across the agency. Approximately 3,200 staff members attended those events for advice, support and health checks. Additionally, most prison staff are able to use the prison gym facilities at allotted times and may access support from local physical education instructors to design their own bespoke fitness and well-being programmes.
	NOMS conducts an annual staff survey that includes elements that focus on well-being and motivation. This year’s survey had a 44% response rate, and 75% of respondents stated that they wanted to remain working for NOMS for at least the next year or three years. In line with the focus of the POA-sponsored survey, NOMS has adopted the Health and Safety Executive’s stress management standards as a framework for the prevention and control of stress, and it has issued a toolkit containing guidance and useful documents for use locally. NOMS encourages all staff, irrespective of their role or position within the organisation, to contribute actively towards the identification, prevention and management of stress. As I said, stress awareness workshops for staff are provided, as well as a 24-hour confidential helpline that staff can ring.
	I am conscious that the well-being report makes reference to the retirement age of prison officers, so I wanted to respond to that by being clear that safe systems of work are in place across the prison estate to ensure that staff work in an environment that is as safe as reasonably practical. In this context, the current fitness standards and assessments for prison officers are based on the requirements of an individual to perform the job safely. Since July 2007, NOMS has been recruiting staff to work until the age of 65. It has employed new prison officers in their 60s who have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. In addition, a number of staff who have the right to retire at 60 now choose to work beyond their retirement age. A recent statistical report identified a total of 814 prison officers over the age of 60, with an average length of service of 24 years, who are working within NOMS.
	I know that the Prison Officers Association will wish to put its case forward for further consideration on the retirement age of prison officers, as it is entitled to do. Following a meeting with my officials and the POA on 1 December, I agreed that officials and the POA could meet to discuss changes to the pension scheme and the associated retirement age. I know that members of the POA met officials on 1 December and I will consider the next steps on this matter with the Cabinet Office.
	I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening. I have a personal
	commitment to this extremely important matter. I find it wholly unacceptable that anyone who works for the state in any capacity should be assaulted in their line of duty. I take this issue seriously, I raise it regularly with officials and I will follow up on the initiatives that we have announced. Of course, my door is always open.
	I will agree to meet the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd at some point, our diaries permitting.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.